Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to suggest this budget the Republicans present tonight not only increases the deficit for the first 2 years but it is also loaded with gimmicks. The tax cut all of a sudden costs less in 2002 than it does in 2000. Medicare cuts explode in the last year. Nonattainable. The defense budget increases in the early years in and then decreases below the President's number in the last few years. I could go on and on. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I am not really certain what this resolution is. I know one thing for sure: It is not a blueprint for how we deal with the budget over the next 6 years. It may be a document for how we deal with the politics over the next several months, but I am not certain. But there are some things I know for sure from reading the document, and that is that it increases the deficit in the next 2 fiscal years. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago I had the privilege of presenting a budget resolution in this House. The deficit was something like $294 billion, and I do not expect my Republican friends to say that they were wrong and that our plan worked or anything like that. But I see this resolution which increases the deficit for the next 2 fiscal years, and I think back to 1993, and I wonder what would have happened if we had come to the House floor and said, ``We have this great budget resolution that is going to reduce the deficit over the next 5 years. But, folks, in 1994 the deficit is going to go up; 1995, the deficit is going to go up, but trust us. In the last 3 years it will go down.'' I think my Republican friends would have laughed us off the floor, and probably should have. That is not what our plan did in 1994. It brought the deficit down from $294 billion. Now we are looking, and last we are told, $130 billion in 1996. But our colleagues come with this document that says trust it, trust them. They are going to raise the deficit in the next 2 years and then some good things will happen. I have seen those promises come and be broken too many times in the past. So to my friends I say it is a resolution that is not going to work, does not do what they say it is going to do, but even after all of that, it still has all those little ingredients in there that is sort of mean to people, and there are different things that hit different ones of us. I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] talk about what it does to veterans. I happen to have lots of elderly women who live in my district, not very much income, income between $7,700 and $9,300; and I looked at their Medicaid reform, and their Social Security premiums are going to be up by over $500 a year because they change the requirements of Medicaid. That is over 5 percent a year for people who are struggling to pay a food bill, and what I discover in many cases, worrying with these little changes whether they can continue to give 5 or 10 bucks a week to church, and those folks again are their targets. So they have a plan that increases the deficit, is not going to work, but keeps picking away at the most vulnerable in our society. We should say ``no'' to this budget resolution.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I am just curious; do we have a CBO estimate of Federal costs of the Wisconsin plan?

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

Mr. SABO. If the gentleman will yield, I wish what the gentleman said was accurate.

Mr. SABO. It does not do what the gentleman says.

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

Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, my understanding, there is no CBO cost estimate, and the reason we do not have it is because the legislative process is again being diverted. If one followed the normal process and had a bill reported from committee, then the House rules require a CBO cost estimate. If he brings to the floor an unreported bill such as this, then the rules do not apply. So we do not have a CBO cost estimate, and I must say to my friend from Wisconsin, I look at your language, and it does provide some cost limitations. But it applies to the totality of State and Federal costs. It does not apply if the State is doing things with the system, increase Federal costs and decrease State costs.

Mr. SABO. Is that a CBO estimate that that is achieved?

Mr. SABO. If the gentleman will yield further, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, is that for State and Federal Government combined?

Mr. SABO. If the gentleman will yield, what does that say?

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. Carrie Meek. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct simply says, let us adopt some simple basic protections for the seniors and vulnerable in our society as it relates to health care. As it relates to the investments we make in domestic discretionary spending, we simply say, accept the Domenici amendment which Bob Dole voted for. You can do it. You can do it within the context of a balanced budget which we agree that we need to achieve. But let us do it in a fair fashion. Let us move in the direction and not closing down Government again. Just simply accept the proposal offered by the Senate Budget chairman, a very Republican person, the last I heard, supported by Bob Dole. Let us be reasonable. Let us move on a course that gets the session ended. Let us not vote to close down the Government again.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].

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