Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the Line Item Veto Act, that its application to contract authority is much more limited than it is to discretionary spending as exists in appropriation bills from year to year. Is that accurate?

Mr. SABO. I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, is it his understanding that the Line Item Veto Act pertains to contract authority in the same fashion as it does to discretionary appropriated spending or is it a more limited application?

Mr. SABO. But I am just curious, to what degree the line-item veto is different for the direct spending of contract authority versus that of appropriated discretionary funds.

Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is my understanding that the application of line-item veto to contract authority is much more limited than it is to any discretionary appropriated funds, and that in fact that it only applies to increases in baseline spending.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am just curious, how could this bill not have the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 apply to it.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Virgin Islands [Mr. Frazer].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the argument of our good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. It would strike me that if one followed that logic, one should say that I think there is a surplus today in the Medicare fund, and we should spend it all today and it would not impact the deficit. That would be about the same logic. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, let us be straight about some facts. Since 1981, we have spent more than we have collected in receipts and interest in these funds. The way we measure the deficit is expenditures versus revenue. In 1994 and 1995, the expenditures from the highway trust fund have exceeded total revenue. The same is true in the airport trust fund. They are not subsidizing the balance of the budget.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I expect, like in all of these debates, certain things are overstated on both sides. But the reality is, again, there is simply no Santa Claus, no little secret pool of money, that someone can spend that does not impact deficits. Deficits on a year-to-year basis are based on revenue coming in and outlays going out. The reality is, I listened to the advocates of this proposal, and it sounds like there is going to be a lot more money to spend on highways, but it is not going to cost anything. I do not know where the money is coming from. The reality is that since 1981 we have spent more on highways that the total collected from the gas tax, even adding in that very generous interest allocation to the highway trust fund. The reality is that in current years, 1994, 1995, we are spending more than what we are getting in gas tax, more than what the trust fund is getting in this very generous interest allocation to the trust fund. So the gas tax is not subsidizing anything else. The question is whether we should take some of this surplus in this fund, which accumulated in the seventies, peaked in 1979, and start spending that now beyond current revenues, beyond interest, at a point in time we are trying to move to get our Federal budget balance of revenues and outlays in order. The advocates say now we are going to do it. We are going to give this program priority over everything else, and if this goes up, the balance of funds coming down, something else has to be cut deeper. That is just simply the reality, if you want to hit a deficit target or try to get in balance. If you do not want to hit a deficit target year by year, or if you do not want to be in balance within 6 or 7 years, or 5 or 8, whatever one has in mind, then you can do this. But if you have a deficit target in mind, this is a dollar-for-dollar trade-off with other priorities. So I think we make a mistake when we set up these little kingdoms, removed from the normal budget process, that say you can go ahead and do what you like; removed from all the other arguments, the give-and- take of the legislative process, in setting our priorities on a year- to-year basis. It is not going to be the end of the world, but it is just a foolish step to take at this point in time, so I would hope the House would defeat this bill.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding, and he has a good amendment, we should pass it.

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, this is one of the rare times I find myself on the opposite side of an issue with my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could tell the House that Santa Claus was here, but Santa Claus is not here. The reality is that if one is trying to achieve a certain deficit target or trying to balance a budget within a specified period of time and one spends more on something, you have to spend less on something else. Those are the simple facts. I like highways. Appropriate expenditures on highways are an important investment in this country. Appropriate expenditures on airports are an important investment in this country. Appropriate expenditures on transit are an important expenditure and investment in this country. But we have to make those judgments in relationship to the other choices we have to make. I also happen to think that money spent on research and development is important, that investment in education is important, that investment in our housing supply and housing availability in this country is important. All of those are going to suffer if this proposal passes today, and the assumption is that somehow billions of new dollars appear to be expended. Those others inevitably have to suffer, because those are the choices we have to make every year in Congress. There is no free pot of money there, available, that has no impact on deficits, no impact on other expenditures. If this passes, if there is additional money spent on those programs beyond projection, something else has to come down. It is the simple fact. What about the inner workings of these plans? Highways; when did this accumulation of surplus occur? In the 1960's, and in the 1970's. The fact is, since 1981 we have spent $18 billion more on highways than the receipts and the tax receipts of that fund; $3 billion more than total receipts, $3 billion more than total receipts, taxes, and interest. One of the interesting things I discovered, and I have an amendment filed, and I do not know that I will offer it today, but I discovered to my amazement that the rate of interest credited to the highway trust fund is between 1 percent to 3 percent higher than the equivalent yield on a 1-year Treasury bill. Somehow, the drafters of this bill and of this law managed to get very lucrative interest rates credited to their account. What about some of the other workings of some of these specific funds? The airport trust fund, we think it pays for aviation. The reality is that over the years, one of the fundamental reasons they have a surplus is that we have used the general revenue fund to subsidize the operations of FAA. Every study I have seen would indicate that about 85 percent of operations of the FAA should be tied or should come from the trust fund if they really paid their accurate share. Maybe 15 percent of it could be credited to defense and other governmental use of the airways. In reality, it has been about 50 percent of the operations that are paid for from the trust fund. If it would have paid its actual share, no surplus would exist. What about in recent years? Since 1981 we have spent more than excise taxes and interest on the highway trust fund. Has that changed in the last couple of years? No. 1994, 1995, we have spent more than interest and current revenues on highways. So this is a fund that has not been mistreated. This involves sort of this wish that somehow this pot of free money exists that somehow can be made available and not impact anyone else. I would hope the House would reject that argument and say that these funds are part of the overall budget strategy involved in the dynamic debate every year of how we set our priorities. There is one way we do that and that is by rejecting this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I have frequently urged my colleagues to address the widening income gap in America. Today, this House had an opportunity to do just that by increasing the minimum wage. Unfortunately, the majority continued its pattern of ignoring the plight of working American families by rejecting even a vote on such an increase, which would have raised the wages of over 12 million working Americans. The facts in favor of raising the minimum wage are overwhelming. Over 4 million American workers earn at or below the minimum wage, which provides an annual income of only $8,840. This amount is well below the poverty line for a family of four, and it does not even support a family of two above the poverty line. In fact, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that one in five minimum wage workers live in poverty. The buying power of the minimum wage has dropped by 27 percent since its average in the 1970's, and is now at its second lowest in four decades. My Republican colleagues have paid a great deal of lip service to the value of work and to getting people off Government support. One might think that they would embrace efforts to help working Americans support themselves. A higher minimum wage enables workers, most of whom are adults, to support themselves without turning to Government. Today, however, the majority flatly rejected a higher minimum wage. The Republican majority speaks often of putting more dollars in Americans' pockets. One might think that instead of advocating tax cuts that benefit our Nation's most affluent, they would support a higher minimum wage, which gives working Americans more money every month for groceries, health insurance, heating bills, bus fare, and rent. Today, however, they not only rejected an increased minimum wage, they blocked the House from even voting on the matter. The majority would have us believe that an increased minimum wage would, without a doubt, increase unemployment. According to many studies, however, this is not true. In fact, over 100 leading economists, including three Nobel Prize winners, have urged an increase in the minimum wage. If Congress truly cares about working Americans, it will raise the minimum wage. Doing so would raise standards of living for many Americans, and would also be a significant step toward closing the income gap that threatens to do great damage to American society. As part of my continuing efforts to understand and combat this income gap, I am hosting a forum on April 12 at the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul, MN. The forum is entitled ``Renewing the Social Contract,'' and will address the questions of why working American families are struggling in today's economy. My special guest at this forum will be AFL-CIO president John Sweeney. Mr. Sweeney has been a tireless advocate on behalf of American workers, pushing for fair wages, good benefits, and honest labor-management cooperation. The forum will explore what Government and business can do to ease economic anxiety, lessen income inequality, and increase job security. In addition to Mr. Sweeney, I will be welcoming representatives of business and academia, as well as workers who know what it is like to struggle for low wages and who have experienced the difficult search for livable-wage jobs. I am hopeful that this event will shed additional light on the income gap, and will produce ideas for cooperation between Government, labor, and business that will enable all Americans to share in our growing economy.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my continued deep concern over the growing income gap in America. Last week, I stated that we must address this problem now, by enacting policies that encourage responsible corporate citizenship. Today, I would like to offer one example of how we can do so. It is clear from our recent budget debates that all Members want the legislation we pass to expend Government resources wisely, getting the most value for our Federal dollars and granting the benefits of Federal policy to those who truly deserve them. Americans from across the political spectrum have decried high CEO pay and perks, which seem only to increase while layoffs grow and worker pay stagnates. Many of our constituents may be surprised to learn, however, that our Government allows corporations generous tax deductions for corporate pay. Meanwhile, the lowest paid worker in the company could be earning the minimum wage and be below the poverty level. In granting such tax deductions, our Government is implicitly encouraging this type of excessive compensation. I believe that in giving business this tax deduction, we should expect something in return. This is why I introduced the Income Equity Act, H.R. 620. My bill would restrict the amount of executive pay that is tax deductible by linking the tax deduction of those who make the most at a company with the salaries of those who make the least. H.R. 620 would limit the tax deductibility of executive pay to 25 times that of the lowest paid full-time worker. For example, if the lowest paid worker in a company is a janitor who is paid $10,000 per year, then any amount of salary paid to the CEO above $250,000 would no longer be tax deductible as a cost of doing business. My bill will not restrict the freedom of companies to pay its workers and executives as they please. H.R. 620 will, however, send a strong message that companies should look out for those at the bottom as well as those at the top of the income ladder. H.R. 620 would also raise the minimum wage from the current $4.25 to $6.50 per hour, making up for the loss in buying power the minimum wage has experienced. The Income Equity Act would be an important first step in crafting Government policies that encourage responsible corporate citizenship. I do not seek to burden businesses, but they must realize that we all have roles to play in bridging the income gap. Today, I ask your support for the Income Equity Act, which is just one piece of what must be a comprehensive plan to restore working Americans' faith in our economy.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for Women's History Month. Women make contributions to our society every day--all year long. But this month offers a special opportunity to acknowledge and to raise awareness about women's contributions in all aspects of our culture--including health, education, public service, and the arts. Minnesota has produced strong female civic leaders who have worked to enhance the lives of others through their endowments to the community. Today, I rise to recognize some Minnesota women in particular, who have enriched our community and advanced the women's movement on a national level. In its earlier years, Minnesota was fortunate to have many women from diverse backgrounds who were committed to improving the lives of average Minnesotans. For instance, Nellie Griswold Francis (1874-1969) and Mattie Porter Jackson (1854-1946), two African-Americans, were instrumental in the early civil rights movement. Eleanore Harriet Bresky (1882-1952), a Russian-American, was a member of the National Woman's Party, as was Minneapolis-born, Agnes Myrtle-Cain (1894-1980), who also was a legislator and a union activist. Ruth Tokuka Nomura Tanbara (1907-), a Japanese-American, was an economist and an early YWCA social worker. I commend organizations like the Minnesota Women's History Month Project who increase awareness and bring attention to these women. Led by Judy Yaeger Jones, this group is one of only four State-based organizations in the country researching and promoting the history of women's lives within their communities. Few people have fought as tirelessly and for a social cause as did Clara Ueland (1860-1927), working for the congressional passage and Minnesota legislature ratification of the nineteenth amendment in 1919. As a leader in the suffrage movement, she served as the last president of the Minnesota Women Suffrage Association and later, as the first president of the Minnesota League of Women Voters. An historic leader in Minnesota history, Clara Ueland truly embodied the character and ability needed to advance women's suffrage. Too numerous to mention here, hundreds of other women in Minnesota have held prominent roles in the State's political, judicial, social and cultural history. I am proud to recognize my mother's second cousin, Congresswoman Coya Knutson, who was the first and, as yet, the only Minnesota woman to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. She served in the State House of Representatives from 1951-54 and was elected from 1955-59 as a Democratic Member of Congress. Another pioneer, Minnesota Supreme Court Associate Justice Rosalie Wahl, was the first woman to sit on the State's highest court and a person who fought to erase racial and gender bias from the courts. Two other women have made a difference in Minnesota politics: Gladys Brooks, who served three terms on the Minneapolis City Council and was a candidate for mayor, and Judge Diana Murphy, who has served as a State judge, U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota, and is currently on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and is a director of the Bush Foundation and the United Way of the Minneapolis Area. Countless other Minnesota women have been outspoken social activists, particularly within the feminist movement. Among them, Gloria Jean Griffin was the coordinator and co-founder of the Minnesota Women's Consortium in 1980. She and Grace Harkness, the legislative director of the Women's Consortium (1980-present) worked at this association of 170 organizations dedicated to full equality for women and as a resource and referral center for women seeking help and support. Additionally, Arvonne Fraser served as President Clinton's U.S. Representative to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in 1993-94. She was also the National President of the Women's Equity Action League in the early 1970's and was named the International Citizen of the Year 1995 by the city of Minneapolis. Representing education, children, health, and the arts, I would like to recognize four women who have excelled in these areas. Jean Keffeler is the immediate past Chair of the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota and was recently reappointed to a second 6-year term on the board. Luanne Larsen Nyberg was the founder and executive director of the Children's Defense Fund-Minnesota (1985-95), an organization dedicated to increased state government and community commitment to meeting children's basic needs. Dr. Jane Hodgson defied the medical establishment in the 1930's, deciding to go to medical school when men were predominantly physicians. In 1992, she was recognized with the Elizabeth Blackwell Award from the American Medical Women's Association for her work in keeping abortion legal. Finally, in the last 20 years, Libby Larsen has become one of the most important and successful composers in the United States, winning a Grammy Award in 1994 and continuing the fine tradition of a strong cultural and arts community in the Twin Cities. As I stated last month regarding Black History Month, I would like to recognize again Ethel Ray Nance (1899-1992), the first black woman hired by the Minnesota Legislature and the first black policewoman in Minnesota. Further, Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, elected in 1993, is the first African-American and the first female mayor of Minneapolis and of course, Nellie Stone Johnson, has been one of the most outspoken and thoughtful leaders in Minnesota's African-American community. I am proud to recognize and acknowledge the influence and contributions these and all women have made in Minnesotan's lives. I thank them for their service to the State, the women's movement, and the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, as we observe Women's History Month, I commend each of these women for their contributions to our society.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, for many years, I have been speaking about the growing income gap in America. Due to the Republican Presidential race, this issue has finally been catapulted into the forefront of the Nation's consciousness. In fact, it is hard to open a newspaper op-ed page or turn on a television news program without hearing something about declining worker wages, increased layoffs and increasing corporate profits and CEO pay. I am grateful that people have started to pay attention to this important problem. I fear, however, that as the Republican race winds down, the issue of the income gap will no longer be in vogue, and the media will turn its attention to something new. We cannot squander this opportunity. The income gap is a growing problem that, if not addressed, threatens to undermine our Nation's prosperity and calls into question the type of nation we want America to be. We must take advantage of the attention now being paid to the problems facing working Americans. Thanks in part to the deficit reduction measures we passed in 1993, the American economy today is in good shape: We enjoy strong growth combined with low unemployment and low inflation. The stock market is also reaching record highs, as are profits of many American companies. This should seem like good news for the average American family, for in the past, Americans at all income levels shared in our Nation's prosperity. Today, however, stock prices and corporate profits rise while the incomes of middle-class American families stagnate or drop. If stagnating wages were the only problem that working Americans had to face, things might not be so bad. However, in recent years our Nation has also seen unprecedented worker layoffs in corporate America. Of course, it is understandable that such upheavals may occur as our economy becomes more technology-based and integrated into global markets. What is difficult to understand, however, are the tremendous bonuses and pay increases enjoyed by the very CEO's who lay off thousands of workers. The United States has prided itself on being a nation of the middle class--one in which if you work hard and follow the rules, you can expect to do well enough to support yourself and your family. Alarmingly, this is no longer true for an increasing number of Americans. In the decades following World War II, American workers shared in the successes of their employers. Over the past 20 years, however, only high-income Americans have moved ahead economically. Between 1977 and 1990, for instance, the average after-tax income of the wealthiest 1 percent of our population increased by 67 percent, after adjusting for inflation. During this same period, the average after-tax income of the bottom fifth decreased by nearly 27 percent. This is not a problem that affects only the poor. Every year, thousands of Americans are laid off from well-paying middle class jobs, to be left with a choice between a new job that pays less or the unemployment line. Clearly, this trend cannot continue. America's level of income inequality is already higher than that of any industrialized nation. Our middle class is evaporating, and we are well on the road to becoming a nation divided between a few very rich and many who simply struggle to get by. None of us, in the words of Labor Secretary Robert Reich, will ``want to live in a society sharply divided between winners and losers.'' Leaders in government and business must begin to address this problem, which will have social consequences that far outweigh any economic impact. We must correct policies that exacerbate the income gap, and develop new ones that help to close it. Several of my Democratic colleagues have developed proposals to reduce the income gap by encouraging responsible corporate citizenship, boosting worker wages, and making our Tax Code more equitable. I commend them for these efforts, and call upon all of my colleagues to take action to restore working Americans' faith in the economy. The widening income gap lays before us the question of what kind of country we want to be: one sharply divided between the rich and poor, or one in which all citizens can benefit from a strong economy. I believe that our choice is clear. America has always been the land of opportunity. We should work together for policies that do not favor any income group, but enable all Americans to share in our Nation's strength and prosperity.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for Black History Month. This year, we are celebrating African-American women of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In Minnesota, we are fortunate to have a fine tradition of civic leaders who have dedicated their lives to enriching the lives of others through their selfless contributions. Today, I'd like to recognize three, among many, of the African-American women in Minnesota who have become shining role models for us all. In this brief history, the State of Minnesota has had many gifted leaders who were also African-American women. In 1923, Ethel Ray Nance (1899-1992) was the first black woman hired by the Minnesota Legislature and was the first black policewoman in Minnesota. During her long life, Ms. Nance was an activist in several civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP]. She also served as the director of research for the National Urban League. In more recent years, Nellie Stone Johnson, who celebrated her 90th birthday in December, 1995, has been one of the most outspoken and thoughtful leaders in Minnesota's African-American community. Generations of Minnesotans owe Nellie a great deal for her dedication to community-building, to civil rights, and to economic fairness. In the tradition of Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale, Nellie Stone Johnson has been rock solid in her commitment to the most vulnerable in our society. Finally, representing a new generation of African-American women leaders, Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, elected in 1993, is the first African-American and the first female mayor of Minneapolis. Mayor Sayles Belton began her public service career immediately after college--when as a civil rights worker she traveled to Jackson, MS, to register voters. She later became the first African-American president of the Minneapolis City Council. As mayor, she has continued her efforts to strengthen families and children by focusing on education, crime prevention, and the economic development of neighborhoods in the city. I am proud to say that these women, and many other African-Americans, have had an important impact on my life and the lives of many Minnesotans. I wish to thank them for their service to the community, the women's movement, and the United States of America. All citizens should be grateful for their accomplishments and endeavors. Mr. Speaker, as we observe Black History Month, I commend Ethel Ray Nance, Nellie Stone Johnson, Mayor Sayles Belton, and all African-Americans for their contributions to our society.