Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this bizarre amendment in some ways yields incredible powers to the majority leader. Second, I would remind Members who eventually decides how things are scored here is the Committee on the Budget. CBO is advisory. This provides the option for the Committee on the Budget to use new, crazy, funny numbers to score a variety of proposals, either on the tax or the spending side. Lots of folks I have heard on my side of the aisle over the years come with proposals on the spending side that say, if we do this, this will save all this money in outyears. We have not followed that. Mr. Chairman, this is another of those sort of ideological proposals. Part of it has had hearings. The hearings that relate to the tax side were held in January of 1995. There have not been any hearings on the spending side of this proposal. But those hearings were overwhelmingly against moving to this type of dynamic scoring. Let us be clear, the current system is not pure static. Members do look at the impact of legislation. But let me read what Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan had to say before the Committee on the Budget of Congress on January 10, 1995, and I know my friend from California was not here then. Let me quote: Can we effectively create an econometric model which fully captures all the effects of a specific policy action? I would say to you, not in our lifetime. Let me continue with another one: We should be especially cautious about adopting technical scoring procedures that might be susceptible to overly optimistic assessments. Third quote: Should financial markets lose confidence in the integrity of our budget scoring procedures, the rise in inflation premiums and interest rates could more than offset any statistical difference between so-called static and more dynamic scoring. This is an amendment that should not be adopted.

Mr. SABO. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes, the balance of my time, to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Let me apologize. The version of the amendment that I saw had majority leader. Let me also indicate to the gentleman that it is the Committee on the Budget that eventually scores budgets and that adopts assumptions around here. This provides a mechanism for them to use this new untested and unproven method for purposes of both budgets and scoring bills. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton]. (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO

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

Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have listened to some of these arguments. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] will speak later. The gentlewoman knows our trade deficit with Japan. I think it is $70 billion or so; $60 billion, only $60 billion. Here we have a very sensitive industry. I believe we have spent something like $5.5 billion on R&D on supercomputing through DOD and the NSF since 1991 to make sure that we retain our technological edge in this country. It is a very small industry, very key to our economy, very key to our national defense. We are told, I heard here a while ago, that, unless we ignore dumping in this case, that is going to destroy the American standard of living. That sort of leaves me confused. It seems to me that we should make sure on this very crucial, small industry that the Japanese do not dump a product into our markets, particularly when it is taxpayer dollars going to purchase it. It seems to me we should continue on the policy of R&D to make sure we retain our national edge. I hear all of these things, how we should be afraid of Japanese retaliation. The reality is the history of competition in Europe is the U.S. products win. We have not won in Japan. In 1995, the public supercomputer procurement market share in Japan: United States, 8 percent; Japanese, 92 percent. Do you think that is because of quality and cost and price? No; it is not. Our products are the best and the best price. Procurement by the Government in Japan in 1995, 11, Japanese; 1, United States. Do you think that is because they had superior quality and price? No. So I do not know. Mr. Chairman, I am not a technical expert to make the judgments on whether they are dumping. All indications are that they are. This amendment would ask the Department of Commerce to appropriately make those judgments. If we are, we should not be spending taxpayer dollars to buy it. People say: Oh, go through this process, put the computer in, let them get by with it. Some place, some time later, some tariff may be applied on a supercomputer. You know, they may not even sell the same product 1 year from now or 6 months from now. So the provision in the bill is a good one; this amendment is one we should overwhelmingly reject.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kolbe amendment. In behalf of the language that is in the bill, might I inquire of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] what our language is in the bill?

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

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta]. (Mr. FOGLIETTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations bill and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. At the outset, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for working with me and other Members on several issues of particular interest to me and to other Members on this side of the aisle. He has been cooperative and fair. I also want to thank the staff--John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Linda Muir, and Lori Beth Feld, for their assistance and hard work on this bill. Also Kristen Hoeschler, Cheryl Smith, and Christy Cockburn of the minority staff. I also want to note that the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] would ordinarily be managing this bill on our side of the aisle today. He could not be here due to his mother's poor health in Texas. But, we look forward to his return and his stewardship of this bill for the minority when we move to conference with the Senate. The fiscal year 1997 Transportation bill is within the 602(B) allocation for the subcommittee. It is also well below the amounts allocated to the Transportation bill in last year's conference report-- as a result, the funding choices were quite difficult, and several of the new initiatives advanced by the administration were not included in the bill. Nevertheless, in large measure, the bill provides adequate funding for basic transportation safety and infrastructure priorities. The bill provides $4.9 billion for FAA operations, including $30 million in new FAA user fees, and $2.6 billion for Coast Guard operations. These amounts will fund essential safety operations at these agencies, although not all of the administration's requests were funded. The bill provides $17.55 billion for the Federal-Aid Highways Program, which will maintain the current level of funding for highway maintenance, repair, renovation, and construction. These funds will help ensure that we continue a minimum level of investment to maintain and improve the condition of our Nation's roads, highways and bridges. One innovative initiative of the administration to expand highway capacity and provide congestion relief through cost effective technology is the Intelligent Transportation Systems [ITS] Program. The ITS Program has matured from a high risk R&D initiative to the point where the program is ready to test the feasibility of integrating advanced technologies for traffic control and management systems in several cities across the country. I know first hand the potential of these ITS technologies for improving air quality, reducing congestion and conserving energy through the Guidestar Initiative that has been underway in Minnesota for several years. This bill provides $228 million in funding for ITS Initiatives. I would have liked a higher funding level, but I believe we are headed in the right direction. These technology investments certainly have the potential for significant payoffs in future years and deserve continued support. The bill provides $400 million in direct loans over 3 years for another important administration initiative--the Alameda rail corridor in California. This economic Development/Transportation Improvement Project has significant regional and national benefits. In the area of transit, the bill provides $2.05 billion for transit formula grants, including $400 million for transit operating subsidies--the same amounts as last year. Mr. Chairman, transit operating subsidies were slashed last year by $310 million or 44 percent. As a result, many bus and rail operators have had to cut service and raise fares, and otherwise diminish services to the working poor, the elderly and others who depend on mass transit. I am pleased that this bill holds the line on additional mass transit reductions. The bill also includes $1.7 billion for discretionary bus, rail modernization, and transit new start grants--the same amount as provided in 1996. These funds will help localities replace old, energy inefficient buses and modernize transit systems throughout the country. The bill provides $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1997 funding for the Airport Improvements Grant Program--a $150 million cut or 10 percent reduction below this year's level. This funding level was the best we could do given the 602(b) allocation given the subcommittee. I believe that we will revisit this issue in conference with the Senate. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly mention some concerns about several other provisions in the bill: The bill cuts essential air service by nearly 50 percent which will severely disadvantage the rural communities that depend on these subsidies. The bill hits AMTRAK very hard. In total, considering both capital and operating funds, AMTRAK takes one of the largest reductions in the bill--a cut of 28 percent. Funding for the northeast corridor--AMTRAK's most profitable service--is completely eliminated. Clearly, AMTRAK cannot sustain the severe reductions in this bill, and I expect that this issue will be revisited in conference. Mr. Chairman, I also do not agree with the committee's recommendation to deny $500,000 in funding for the Domestic Auto Content Labeling law. The American Automobile Labeling Act specifically requires the Department of Transportation to ensure that automobile manufacturers label new vehicles to display their domestic content. The U.S. Trade Representative is relying on the DOT to conduct periodic audits to monitor the compliance of Japan and other foreign governments with the 1995 Trade Agreement on autos and auto parts. Under this agreement, Japanese automakers committed that they would increase their purchases of American automotive parts. However, without the baseline audits for which this bill denies funding, there will not be a mechanism for assessing whether these commitments are, in fact, met. The domestic content law will help promote jobs for U.S. workers, and provide consumers with information that will help them to buy American. The majority's decision to delete this funding was a bad decision, and should be reversed when we deal with this issue in conference with the Senate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the committee. (Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time, and I rise in opposition to this unique rule. It is a rule which appears to say that about $860 million is appropriated but it is not appropriated. It is not counted. This is and of itself is sort of strange. Then we have a strange provision in the Budget Act with says this money can be allocated to the Committee on Appropriations if certain things happen. Mr. Speaker, I think it is just sort of a method of hiding the fact that many of the discretionary limits set by the majority simply were not working, are not workable and they are trying to find a variety of ways to get around the fact that their top dollar numbers simply do not work for discretionary spending. But this money appears to be very unique. If the committee acts and the Congress acts to reenact some taxes that relate to the Superfund, it appears that money can be spent twice, once for the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to increase the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations so the money can be spent on the Superfund; but the revenue base was not increased, so these same dollars can be counted as offsets to other tax cuts for pay-as-you-go purposes. So it would appear under the Budget Act we have these dollars in this bill now which are appropriated but we are going to be told have to be reappropriated again in some future time in a special budget allocation which makes some money available, if a tax increase for Superfund is enacted, but that can be both spent and used to offset other tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, this is a very unique type of rule, very unique type of budget process that is the ultimate in game playing.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, this place always amazes me. Because of President Clinton's program, we had declining deficits for 4 years. Now we have the new Republican plan which amazingly increases the deficit in the next 2 fiscal years. But what is even more surprising is they not only manage to increase the deficit for the next 2 years but at the same time they manage to make devastating cuts in health programs for the vulnerable in our country, particularly for our seniors. There literally would be thousands of seniors, generally poor elderly women, who would see huge increases in their Medicare premiums and many other millions of Americans who would be subject to changes in Medicaid that would leave their health care in question. Mr. Speaker, this is really an amazing trick. Two years of rising deficits and at the same time program cuts that devastate millions of Americans.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], my good friend the ranking member, and I forget the name of that committee these days. It used to be Energy and Commerce. He does a great job. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution. We can do better than passing a budget resolution in 1996 that increases the deficit for the next 2 years. We have had lots of Members talk about how it can be done. It has been offered. It has been voted on. It has not passed, but it can be done. Mr. Speaker, I have had hopes through this session, starting back in 1995, that somehow before this year was over we would continue on the track we started in 1993 which involved very substantial deficit reduction and find some way across the aisles to pass a real budget for 1995 and now 1996 to put our fiscal house more in order, brought us to balance, made sensible and practical reforms of a whole series of programs which need to be done. I told my Republican colleagues early on this in process that I hoped at some point we will get beyond ideology and would get to pragmatic solutions. I still have a glimmer of hope that somehow that can happen between the Congress and the President and before we adjourn in 1996. I tend to be an optimistic person. That optimism is dwindling week by week. One thing I know for certain, and that is that this budget resolution and how it was put together does not represent that hope for a solution of our basic fiscal problems in 1996. It continues the ideology. It does not continue and move to pragmatic solutions to problems. I am not sure what happens tonight. I expect it passes. I expect it will be used for a variety of political purposes the next several weeks, the next several months. But somehow if we are not this year, we will be back to this problem in 1997. We have to find answers that are real, that are pragmatic, not ideological. And, unfortunately, we are not moving closer this evening. I think we are moving further away. And I frankly think this country would be much better served if we simply voted ``no'' tonight and started all over again in real attempts to reach across the partisan aisle to face more problems that still confront us in this country. So I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from North Carolina, Mrs. Clayton.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend from New Jersey, although he has disappeared, our numbers would show the President is actually $100 million less in deficit than the Republicans are in 1997, so the 6-year claim, I think, is slightly off in the first year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].