Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), my distinguished colleague. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his answer, and I might indicate also that the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment includes some additional funding for the important duty of the Coast Guard and for port security in this country, which is very crucial.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the continuing resolution and to speak about the supplemental appropriations bill. Yesterday in the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment to increase funding for a number of critical security needs. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated. The September 11 tragedies happened because terrorists were able to take over the cockpit of four airplanes. The Obey amendment would have provided an additional $250 million to prevent this from ever happening again. The President even requested this funding, but the majority bill, due to other priorities, included only $50 million of the President's $300 million request. Today, the airlines have made some interim improvements so that cockpit doors cannot be as easily broken into, such as the strengthening of bolts. The President's proposed $300 million for permanent modifications to secure the cockpit doors to prevent an intruder from entering the cockpit, the funding request by the President and included in the Obey amendment, would help airlines ensure that all aircraft cockpit doors are secured as quickly as possible. In addition, the Obey amendment would provide additional funding to our Nation's airports to meet additional security needs. They are doing increased patrols of ticket counters, baggage claim areas and screening checkpoints that have been mandated as have increased inspections, controlled access points in areas outside the terminal buildings. Airports have also been required to reissue all airport identification and verify such identification at all access gates. To meet these requirements, the airports have incurred significant additional costs, primarily for law enforcement officers and overtime pay. The American Association of Airport Executives estimates the cost of these new requirements to be about $500 million this year. These increased costs come at a time when airports are losing money due to increased air travel and fewer sales in airport shops and eateries. The airports estimate total revenue lost to be $2 billion in 2002, or 20 percent of estimated revenue. The Obey amendment included $200 million to assist airports in meeting the cost of increased security requirements mandated by the FAA. As the Defense bill now goes to the House Committee on Rules and then comes to the House floor, I urge the House to allow consideration of the Obey amendment. Just to be clear, would the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) yield for a question?

Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, all the funds that I speak of and all the funds that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) speaks of in his amendment, as I understand, are declared to be emergency funds, so they could only be spent, even after they are appropriated, if the President agrees, says there is an emergency and then releases the funds.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct is very straightforward. It is a motion to instruct the House conferees to insist on the highest possible level of funding for transportation security. As the conference on the differences between the House and Senate versions of the fiscal year 2002 Transportation Appropriations bill begins, we now have an opportunity, in light of the tragic events of September 11, to provide additional transportation security resources. Funding in the Senate bill for aviation security is over $14 million higher than funding in the House bill. The Senate bill funds civil aviation security at $150.2 million and the House bill funds it at $135.9 million. Likewise, funding in the Senate bill for Coast Guard operating expenses is $45 million above the House bill. While not all of this funding is directly related to increased transportation security, much of it is because Coast Guard operations are multimissioned. Currently Coast Guard homeland security missions have increased substantially while other missions, such as drug interdiction, have decreased. In context, I must say that the Senate also had a higher 302(b) allocation for total resources available than the House did. Accordingly, this motion to instruct directs the House conferees to agree to the Senate funding levels for transportation security programs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), our good friend.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, analysis of recent Congressional Budget office data on income trends show alarming evidence of the widening gap between America's highest- and lowest-paid workers. Between 1979 and 1997, the income of the lowest 20 percent of U.S. households, in constant dollars, fell by $100. In contrast, the household income of those in the top 1 percent increased an average of $414,000. Despite the unprecedented economic growth of the past decade, America's lowest- paid workers are not catching up. The outlook appears as dim. With passage of President Bush's tax cut earlier this year, the disparity between low- and high-income households will only widen. When fully phased in, the top 1 percent of households would see their income grow 6-7 percent, or $46,000-$53,000. However, the household income of the lowest 20 percent would rise only 0.8 percent, and the income of those in the middle fifth would rise only 2.2 percent. To combat this troubling growth of economic inequality in America, I am again introducing the Income Equity Act. This legislation addresses the problem by encouraging corporate responsibility. For too many years, the trend in corporate America has been to pay top executives lavishly, while thinking of other employees as an expense or not thinking of them at all. My legislation will encourage companies to take a closer look at how they compensate their employees at both ends of the income ladder. The Income Equity Act would place a new limit on our government's practice of subsidizing executive compensation through the tax code. My bill would enhance the current $1,000,000 cap on the tax deduction for executive compensation with a cap set at 25 times the company's lowest full-time salary. For example, if a filing clerk at a firm earns $18,000, then any amount of executive compensation over $450,000 would no longer be tax deductible as a business expense. I have revised the Income Equity Act for 2001 to include non-cash compensation such as stock options, memberships to premier health and sporting facilities, and higher education for executives' children. More and more executives are receiving compensation in forms other than cash, and my revised legislation addresses this trend to ensure that taxpayers do not inappropriately subsidize these forms of compensation. This bill would not restrict the freedom of companies to pay their workers and executives as they please. It would send a strong message, however, that in return for tax deductions, the American taxpayer expects companies to compensate their lowest-paid workers fairly. Mr. Speaker, my legislation alone will not completely close the ever- widening income gap in America. However, it is an important step in resolving this growing problem that imposes monetary and social costs on all of us.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the answer is obvious what we should do with the amendment proposed by the gentlewoman from Ohio: we should support it. But let me make a few other comments. I think this debate is very useful, because it highlights the importance of housing. Over the last several years, I have been disappointed to the degree that housing has been off the agenda for both parties, and if there is any area where the Federal Government has played a primary role for decades, it has been in the development of housing policy in this country, whether it is through tax programs, through insurance programs, or through direct expenditures. We have a crisis in the availability of low- and moderate-income housing in this country today, and I would suggest to my friends that while we have our extensive debates on education policy, that the Federal role in providing for low- and moderate-income housing in this country, in my judgment, is of greater importance to education policy in this country than many of the things we are doing in the education bill. But if we have limited resources, what should be our priority? Clearly the first priority has to be that we are funding and operating in a decent and efficient manner the housing that exists. That means that we have to have sufficient appropriations for operating subsidies, that we deal with unique programs and problems, like the drug problem in public housing throughout this country. Next we should move to make sure that the housing that we have today is maintained through our rehab programs. Again, we find that those programs are funded at a grossly inadequate level in this bill. Then we should move on to production, and we desperately need a production program in this country. We are not close to beginning to deal with that problem. I would love to see us doing it. But if we have to make choices, the first choice has to be that we fund in a sufficient fashion those programs that simply keep the existing housing supply operating in a safe manner for its residents, where they can enjoy life. For some people to suggest that as part of that process of running large public housing projects we should not provide for security, I think flies in the face of reality. Mr. Chairman, I hope we adopt the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is an actual cut in funding from what is appropriated for this current year, at the same time that these housing agencies are also going to be required to pay significantly higher energy costs?

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. SABO. That is right.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Before my comments, might I ask a question of the ranking member? I am just curious. I hear lots of discussion that communities can use their operating subsidy to fund this program. If we look at the current year's budget for the operating subsidy and the drug elimination program, and compare it to the projected request for operating subsidy for next year, including all the increases in energy costs, does that amount exceed what we appropriated this current year for these two programs of operating subsidy and drug elimination?

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for his response.

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for including in the bill a $4 million increase for transmission reliability and to direct the Department of Energy to initiate field-testing of advanced composite conductors. I just want to clarify that these additional funds will be used explicitly for Aluminum Matrix Composite conductors; is that correct?

Mr. SABO

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we had a long discussion on the rule today, and the amendment I had offered I requested be made in order. It was not made in order, and the rule was not changed, so we have to offer the amendment in a different form. This is a very simple amendment. I wish it could be more complicated, but because of the action of the Committee on Rules and the action in the House, I cannot offer a more complicated amendment. This one simply prohibits funding to process the applications of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers for either conditional or permanent authority to operate throughout the United States beyond the current 20-mile commercial zone. Let me say that I thought the amendment that we had earlier clearly was NAFTA-compliant. This probably is not, because it is a total prohibition, but I know of no other way for us to deal with this issue on the floor. I think we should deal with it. Let me review where we are at this point. The Committee on Rules did not make our amendment in order. We heard a great deal about the money that we were going to make available for facilities and inspectors in this bill. A significant part of that money has been struck. Today I think close to $90 million for inspectors and facilities have been struck by points of order. Mr. Chairman, I was a strong supporter of the action of our Chair in putting that money in the bill. I thought it was the appropriate thing to do. I thought that was a significant step forward, but not far enough. I thought the best solution to a very troubling situation was both to do preinspection of the carriers, plus add to our capacity to inspect individual trucks. The reality is at this point in the bill, most of that money has disappeared, and I have no option to offer an amendment that calls for preinspection. I think the only way we can address this issue in the House, keep it alive for conference, indicate to the administration and to the Senate that we want to make sure that we do the utmost to protect safety, is to adopt this limitation which is strong and outright. It gives us the action from a point of strength of dealing with the issue of truck safety for all the trucks that are going to be coming here from Mexico as we move on in this process. Let me say as it relates to some of the money that was struck, the administration plans to do 18 months review. Let me simply suggest that even if that money had stayed in the bill, particularly the money for building new facilities, probably very little of that would have been spent within the next 18 months, because it will take a significant period of time to build facilities. Clearly that money would not have been spent by January 1 of this year. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this amendment. It is clear. It is straight to the point. It says that we are not going to permit these carriers to operate beyond the existing 20-mile commercial zone. Mr. Chairman, I fully understand that as this moves through the process, this will need to be revised, but it is the only option we have to deal with this important safety question for the American people.