Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would want to visit with the gentleman and the chairman of the committee before conference is finalized, see if we cannot work this out to the satisfaction of everyone.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].

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 am not totally familiar with the project myself and with what the problems are, but there has been some concern over this project by Members on our side. I would just for my own point of view want to keep the reservation open to be able to visit with Members of our side who have had concerns.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], a valuable member of our subcommittee.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member, for yielding. Let me say to him, I admire the work that he has done in behalf of this House and our caucus. It has been truly outstanding. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could be here today to say that I could vote for this bill. I cannot, and I hope I will be able to when it comes back from conference committee. Mr. Speaker, let me focus on one program that I think has the potential to be a great positive, but is a long way from achieving its goal. That is the program to expand coverage of uninsured children in this country. There are many problems with the program as it is structured in the bill today. But let me focus on one that has not been subject to much discussion. The reality is that, however we resolve the various disputes that relate to the structure of children's health care, the States will play a vital role. The other reality is that many States have already acted in a very aggressive fashion through Medicaid or through other plans to expand and cover kids with health insurance, sometimes in the public sector and sometimes in the private sector. Unfortunately, the way the bill is structured today, either by design or by accident, it is structured so it penalizes every State that has acted and rewards the States that have done nothing, or done very little. I think that is both unfair and bad public policy. It sends a totally wrong message to every State in this country that we ask to be aggressive and to be creative in dealing with problems in our country. How does it happen? The question is, Do we measure the distribution from the Federal Government to the States on the basis of kids in need? I think we should. Unfortunately, the bill simply does it by the number of uninsured kids, which guarantees that every State that has acted is penalized. I would hope, as this bill goes to conference, that we resolve some of the definition of benefits and the scope of coverage in an adequate way, but let us also not penalize States for having acted.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I am not one who automatically supports privatization. In some cases it does not make sense. In other cases it does. If it involves trying to switch jobs from people who have benefits to people who do not have benefits, I have deep concern. However, here we are talking about competition between the private and public sector, where both have highly skilled, well paid employees with decent benefits, health and pension benefits. As we try to squeeze ever-increasing demands into restricted dollars, this is a case where competition between private and public sector clearly makes sense. I hope my colleagues vote ``yes'' on the Everett amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rodriguez].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, one out of every seven American children is growing up without health insurance. These 10 million children-- including 70,000 in my home State of Minnesota--are less likely to get preventive care to keep them healthy, or see a doctor when they get sick. These obstacles to health care can lead to harmful and lasting effects. For example, children whose ear infections go undiagnosed and untreated can suffer from permanent hearing loss. Sadly, there are signs that the prognosis for the health of American's children is getting worse. The number of families receiving insurance sponsored by their employer has declined from 67 percent in 1987 to 59 percent in 1995. Additionally, premium costs for family coverage are on the rise, placing health insurance beyond the reach of an increasing number of working families. Enough is enough. It is time for all of us to commit to solving this problem. Today, I am introducing legislation that takes one step toward a comprehensive solution. The Children's Health Coverage Improvement Act of 1997 would make children's-only policies widely available to families at more affordable group rates. Federally regulated self-insured health plans would be required to offer these policies as one of the options available to their employees. Many low-income working families simply cannot find room in the family budget to pay the increasingly large premiums for family policies. Moreover, many financially strapped single parents cannot afford to pay family premiums designed to cover two adults plus children. Kids-only policies could provide an answer for these hard- working and hard-pressed families. According to a recent survey of 600 employers, the majority of respondents indicated a strong sense of responsibility toward their workers and expressed sympathy for those who are uninsured. My legislation builds upon this sense of community, and creates a new way for employers to make coverage available to children. This legislation is also sensitive to employers' concerns that they cannot assume further insurance costs. Instead of requiring an employer to shoulder a specified portion of insurance costs, this bill allows the dynamics of the group insurance market to create affordable kids-only policies. Shoring up the decline in employer-sponsored health care is one way to help get kids insured. Ten million American children need help. It's time for all of us--in both the private and public section--to pitch in and make sure they get it.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Let me say a special word of gratitude and thanks to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for their great job in bringing this compromise budget proposal to us today. It is not easy, but it is a job well done and the country is well served by your efforts. By passing this budget agreement today, we will be entering the final stages of a 7-year effort to get this country's fiscal house in order. The effort began in 1990 with the budget agreement between President Bush and congressional Democrats. It took another giant step forward in 1993, when President Clinton and congressional Democrats passed the largest deficit reduction package in history. And today, by passing this budget resolution, we will move toward finishing the job of balancing the budget. When all is said and done, the record will show that the only people to have voted for all three of these budgets will be congressional Democrats. And, in fact, most of the people who will have voted for two out of three will be congressional Democrats. Before the 1993 deficit reduction package was passed, the deficit stood at $290 billion. But congressional Democrats acted to change that and the country has reaped the benefits ever since. Thanks to that 5- year plan, the deficit is now expected to fall for a fifth straight year to its lowest level since 1979. By the end of 1997, the 1993 plan will have cut almost $700 billion in projected deficits. Indeed, without that success, we would not be in a position to consider balancing the budget by the year 2002. The economy has also responded to the 1993 plan by creating more than 12 million new jobs, raising wages, lowering unemployment, and keeping inflation in check. Most of us cannot remember a time when our economy was stronger and more likely to provide a better future for our citizens. I firmly believe this would not have happened if we had not acted to reduce the deficit significantly. The budget before us continues the fiscal discipline of the last 7 years. At the same time, it gives us the opportunity to correct some of the excesses of last year's welfare bill. It will help restore fairness for legal immigrants who had benefits taken away from them unfairly. It will provide the opportunity to restore food stamps for people unable to find jobs. This is a good resolution. Let us pass it.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I do not, but I ask unanimous consent that if no one rises in opposition, then the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] might have the 10 minutes as the co-author of the amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, this supplemental appropriations bill is very important to the thousands of people in Minnesota and the Dakotas who have had their lives turned upside down by an unprecedented flood this spring. As the only member of the Appropriations Committee from these three States, I have a very strong interest in moving this legislation quickly. I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee responded to the region's needs by adding an extra $200 million to earlier requests for funding. But that action was taken before we knew the full cost of this disaster. I had the opportunity to tour the flood-ravaged areas recently with Majority Leader Armey, Congressman Pomeroy of North Dakota, and several other Members, and we were all astounded by the devastation. Since that time we have heard that preliminary damage estimates for Minnesota alone are likely to exceed $1 billion. The Senate has responded by providing $500 million in CDBG funds in its flood relief bill. Today, I urge my House colleagues to support an amendment that will provide the same level in the House bill. The flood assistance in this bill will help families, individuals, businesses, and local governments that have suffered losses, and will also pay for flood prevention and control efforts. The aid--combined with the persistence, creativity, and heroic spirit we have already seen from area citizens--will go a long way toward getting the region back on its feet. Additionally, we have the chance today to remedy the problems we created for legal immigrants in last year's welfare bill. Congresswoman Carrie Meek is offering an amendment to delay these problems until a more permanent solution can be effected. I urge my colleagues to do what's right and support our efforts to restore fairness for legal immigrants. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the new welfare law, will deny legal immigrants supplemental security income [SSI], food stamps, and Medicaid benefits starting in August of this year. Many of the people affected by the new law are elderly people who have lived in this country, worked hard, and paid taxes for many years. many of these people came here to escape political or religious persecution. The new law is unduly harsh on these people, and the States, localities, and private charities have not had nearly enough time to find ways to soften the blow. In my State of Minnesota alone, the new law will deny food stamps to 16,000 legal immigrants, supplemental security income to 5,400 elderly and disabled legal immigrants, and Medicaid coverage to 470 immigrants. Nationally, millions more will be hurt by these changes. I urge my colleagues to support the flood relief efforts in this bill which are so important to my State and region. I also urge that we begin to restore fairness to legal immigrants that was unwisely taken away in last year's welfare legislation.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this amendment which restores the eligibility of SSI until the end of this fiscal year. I want to particularly commend the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], our good friend, for her persistence. We are here because of her efforts on the Committee on Appropriations to set the framework for having a floor amendment to be offered. I just want to say a special word of thanks to her because as the son of immigrants, I especially appreciate her efforts in behalf of extending for a short period of time truly justice for many deserving Americans.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 27th annual Earth Day, which occurs next Tuesday, April 22. Mr. Speaker, it is easy for us to be complacent today about the state of our environment. After a century of severe pollution, we have rallied over nearly three decades to accomplish major successes in environmental protection and restoration. Among them are the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act. These laws have left our air and water cleaner than it has been in generations, and they have restored healthy populations of many plant and animal species that were on the brink of extinction. Perhaps more important than laws, however, is the unprecedented shift in public attitudes and practices that has occurred over the past 25 years. It is becoming commonplace, for instance, to see recycling bins alongside every trash bin; schoolchildren are taught about preservation of resources; and volunteer groups can regularly been seen cleaning up our riverbanks, parks, and open spaces. After so many years of successfully struggling to improve our environment, it can be easy to lose perspective on why this struggle is important, and why we must remain ever vigilant. Earth Day exists so that we can pause and remember why we began working to protect the environment in the first place. In debates over whether to preserve a particular species or ban a certain pollutant, we tend to forget why these things are important to us. Simply put, our planet is our home. By polluting it, abusing its natural resources, and reducing the diversity of its species, we make it a more difficult and less healthy place in which to live. Very often we hear people invoke ``our children and grandchildren'' when talking about the environment. This is not idle sentimentality. A child born today is breathing cleaner air, and can swim in cleaner lakes and rivers than a child born 10 years ago. Environmental protection is about quality of life and survival. It is precisely for this reason that we cannot rest on our laurels. Americans are clearly living in a healthier environment than we were a generation ago. But there are still many old problems that have not been resolved, and many new challenges that we must face. This is not the time to be satisfied with our accomplishments and begin to roll back our environmental protections. Rather, it is time to examine what we have done and look for ways to do better. The debate over clean air presents a good example. There are many opinions about the best way to reduce pollution in our atmosphere. While this debate continues, we must not overlook an important way that individuals and government can ease air pollution--mass transit and environmentally friendly transportation. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and now as its ranking member, I have been proud to advocate more investment in mass transit for our cities, and for further development of alternative modes of transportation like bicycling. By making it easier for people to ride their bikes, the bus, or the train to work every day, we can take an important step toward reducing both pollution and our heavy use of gasoline and other limited fossil fuels. This is just one example of the many ways that environmental protection is important in our daily lives. It shows us that protecting our environment is not an abstract goal that we pursue simply for its own sake. The laws that we enact and the habits we form affect the way we live our lives, and help determine whether future generations will be able to live happy, healthy, and productive lives. This is what I urge all of my colleagues, and all Americans, to think about this Earth Day.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jackie Roosevelt Robinson, who 50 years ago today broke the color barrier in major league baseball. Mr. Speaker, I am a baseball fan. Whether it's amateur or professional--and particularly when it's Congressional--I have loved the game of baseball my whole life. Jackie Robinson was one of my earliest baseball heroes, and I was a Brooklyn Dodgers fan because of him. When I was a boy, I remember running home from school to listen to the Mutual radio baseball game of the week, especially for Jackie Robinson and a Brooklyn Dodgers game broadcast. As a boy, I admired Jackie Robinson as a great baseball player. His achievements in 10 seasons with the Brooklyn Dodgers are still amazing to consider: 1947 National League Rookie of the Year, 1949 National League batting champion and Most Valuable Player, a .311 lifetime batting average, 197 stolen bases, and a 1962 Hall of Fame inductee. For baseball fans, these statistics are a marvel. But, Jackie Robinson's legacy is so much more significant than great baseball. Today, I admire Jackie Robinson as a great man. He bore the full brunt of racial prejudice during a shameful period in our Nation's history. Robinson was vilified for being the first African-American to play and excel in white major league baseball. While Robinson's terrific baseball skills soon quieted his racist critics, the experience of being the first African-American to integrate major league baseball was not easy for him. He suffered snubs and insults from players and fans, and endured more than his fair share of runners' spikes and brush-back pitches. But he withstood every test. And, slowly, but surely, more and more baseball fans began to see past the color of his skin and respect Jackie Robinson for the truly great baseball player he was. Jackie Robinson had a sixth sense about running the bases. He would dance off a base, challenge pitchers and taunt catchers--daring them to do something about it. ``Daring,'' he once said. ``That's half my game.'' Jackie Robinson's daring smashed racial myths of the day and made him a baseball legend in the process. He changed the game of baseball and American society forever--leading the way for other African-Americans who wanted to play. But, more importantly, he defied racial prejudice in America with grace and courage. Mr. Speaker, Jackie Robinson was a true American hero. We celebrate his baseball talents, but his strength of character and commitment to social justice are what we most proudly remember him for today. He has a special place in our Nation's history--and in my heart. General Leave

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker. It has been clear for many years that our campaign finance system must be reformed. Recent events have raised public awareness of this need, and I am glad that the issue is now near the top of our agenda. Reforming our campaign finance system is one of the most difficult problems before Congress. In the past, sweeping comprehensive reform has yielded a multitude of unintended consequences. Our campaign system is complex, and it will not yield to easy solutions or quick fixes. That is why I am introducing legislation that takes a small but important step in the right direction--toward limiting campaign spending and leveling the playing field between challengers and incumbents. My bill, the Citizens' Choice Act, creates a voluntary system of publicly financed general elections to the U.S. House of Representatives. Under my bill, a House of Representatives general election trust fund would be funded by a voluntary $5 check-off on income tax returns, and would consist of one account per political party in every congressional district. Candidates who accepted money from this fund must agree to spend no more than $600,000 on their campaigns. The spending limit would be waived if a candidate's opponent refuses to participate in the public funding and raises at least $100,000. My bill also includes a blanket prohibition on all House general election candidates from loaning more than $500,000 to their own campaigns. My bill addresses the most common criticism of public financing proposals: that taxpayers should not subsidize the campaigns of candidates they oppose. That is why I would allow people to choose which party would receive their tax dollars. This eliminates the problem, while creating greater opportunity for citizens to get involved in the electoral process. Mr. Speaker, some Members are too ready to believe that citizens strongly oppose public financing. I believe it is time for Congress to take another look at public financing of campaigns. Widespread frustration with our current system has grown to the point that Americans demand new solutions. People want fair campaigns, and I believe the American people will understand that an appropriate combination of public financing and spending limits is an effective way to govern our campaign system. I also feel that citizens will welcome the opportunity to support our political system through my proposed check-off. I urge my colleagues to look beyond any preconceived notions they may have about public financing of campaigns, and support legislation that gives citizens a choice in financing our electoral process.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, a year ago at this time, one couldn't open a newspaper or magazine without reading about the widening gap between the rich and poor in our Nation. Today, however, these articles are difficult to find. Although income inequality has declined slightly from its high point in 1993, we are still in the midst of a long-term rise in inequality that has persisted since the late 1960's. While the income gap persists, working Americans are finding it even harder to make ends meet. Though our economy continues to grow, most American families have not returned to the income levels they had before the 1989 recession. In fact, in 1994 more than 16 percent of full-time workers could not support their families above the four- person poverty level--compared to 12 percent in 1979. Although many forces lie behind the growing inequality of income and wealth in America, it is clear that both Government and corporate America have roles to play in narrowing the gap. For this reason, I am introducing the Income Equity Act of 1997. 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 force companies to take a close look at how they compensate their employees at both ends of the income ladder. The Income Equity Act would end our Government's practice of subsidizing excessive executive pay through the Tax Code by denying tax deductions for executive compensation that exceeds 25 times the company's lowest paid full-time employee. For example, if a filing clerk at a firm earns $10,000, then any amount of executive salary over $250,000 would no longer be tax deductible as a business expense. This bill will not restrict the freedom of companies to pay their workers and executives as they please. It will send a strong message, however, that in return for tax deductions, the American taxpayer expects companies to compensate their lowest paid workers fairly. Economic inequality is a problem that will, if not addressed, rend the fabric of our society. Our Government has every reason, and every right, to encourage responsible corporate citizenship. The Income Equity Act is not the ultimate answer to the widening gap between the rich and the poor, but it is an important step toward ensuring that all Americans can share in our Nation's prosperity.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to participate in the celebration of Black History Month this year by honoring two extraordinary civic leaders of Minnesota. I rise today to honor Cecil Newman and Gleason Glover, both of whom were influential and notable figures in Minnesota's civil rights history. Cecil Newman is most noted for founding both the Minneapolis Spokesman and the St. Paul Recorder, the oldest African-American-owned newspapers in Minnesota. In 1935, when the newspapers were first published, Cecil delivered them by foot. Today, the Spokesman and the Recorder are disbursed to over 26,000 Minnesotans. The newspapers were two among many of Cecil's remarkable achievements before he died in 1976. Mr. Newman was also responsible for persuading many African-Americans to exercise their right to vote and was a prominent leader in the fight for fair employment laws in Minnesota. I believe Hubert Humphrey's statement about Cecil best sums up the kind of man he was: ``Cecil Newman is a good citizen--responsible, active, wise, and influential. I have been enriched by his friendship, strengthened by his support, and helped by his advice.'' Gleason Glover dedicated his life to bettering the lives of African- Americans. His list of accomplishments and awards is long. I am proud to say I knew Gleason on a professional level and he was a close personal friend. Gleason came to Minnesota to serve as the executive director, and later the president and chief executive officer of the Minneapolis Urban League, one of the most forceful advocate organizations for African-Americans, minorities, and the poor. The league, which started in New York City in 1910 to help African-Americans in their transition from rural to urban living, has expanded to provide assistance in areas such as employment, housing, education, and social welfare. It has also taken on additional challenges including adolescent pregnancy, single female-headed households, and crime in the African-American community. By the time Gleason retired in 1991, his strong leadership brought the Minneapolis Urban League from a staff of three and a budget of $45,000 to a staff of over 100 and a budget of $3 million. Before his untimely death in 1994, Gleason was responsible for making the Minneapolis Urban League one of the most important civil rights/social service agencies in Minnesota. Again, I am proud to recognize the impact and influence both Cecil Newman and Gleason Glover had on the lives of many Minnesotans. Their dedication and commitment to public service made them great community leaders who will be long remembered.