Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SABO. For the sake of my friend from Ohio, the gentleman from New York is not scheduled to speak.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, Members, the motion to instruct does four very important things: It asks the House to agree to the Senate discretionary levels as set by an amendment offered by Senator Domenici in the Senate and agreed to by a 3-to-1 vote in the Senate. This is to insure that we do not head to another Government shutdown in a long, dragged-out fight over appropriation bills. It is also about making sure that we adequately fund our programs for education, environmental and safety protection, research and development, and vital programs such as in agriculture. We also instruct the House to agree to three Senate sense of the Senate or sense of the Congress resolutions. Budget resolutions are about numbers, but it is ultimately also about policy. The Senate, through a sense of Congress, said that we should not be making changes in laws as they relate to spousal impoverishment and nursing home standards in Medicaid. I can think of no more fundamental policy that we should sustain in the Congress than those two basic priorities as we make modifications in Medicare, in Medicaid. And we also say, and accept, a resolution from the Senate saying, that when we deal with changes in Medicare, we should not change the protections for seniors as it relates to balanced billing. In plain language, we should not let providers charge more than they are currently allowed to charge to seniors. Most of our seniors are very vulnerable, low-income people, and to change the Medicare system so that we ask higher payments from them, as proposed by the majority, is simply wrong. So I urge the House to adopt this motion to instruct.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem defending the President's budget versus that of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. The gentleman from Ohio worked hard, but the President's is much better, much better for education and training, much better potentially for reforming Medicare in a fashion that will work. The reality is your changes, you add some money up early, your provider Medicare cuts are going to have to be deeper in the final year, 2002, than they were in your original plan. Why? to accommodate your tax cuts. You talk about front end and back end loading. Somehow, there is enough money for your tax cut in 1997, for you show a deficit increase then, too. Miraculously, your tax cut costs less in 2002 than it does in 2001. There is some end loading in the President's, but you have the same problem. If you did not want that, if you wanted a nice, steady flow, you would have voted for the coalition budget.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the very decent gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Veterans funding is the gentleman's top priority. He should have voted for the coalition budget because that budget had less cuts in veterans' care than the majority proposal. But, in reality, what will govern the funds available for VA funding in the next several years is a total level of discretionary funding. That is what is going to give appropriations the flexibility for funding VA. Cuts in discretionary funding are much deeper, much more severe, than those projected in the President's budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to only say it is the President's program that reduced the Federal deficit by more than 50 percent over all the ``no'' votes of the Republican, now majority, when they were in the minority. It is the President's program that has brought record growth of over 8\1/2\ million new jobs since 1993. The President does not have to listen to lectures from people who voted ``no'' on real deficit reduction in 1993. He has not just talked about it, he has done it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver]

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I cannot respond for other people. I can only say the President's record on deficit reduction, on rational discipline of the Government is so much superior to previous Republican administrations. His proposal today is so far superior to the majority proposal that it is a simple and easy vote for me to vote ``yes'' despite the fact I would have preferred some other alternative. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North California [Mr. Hefner].

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], because it is so much better than the Republican alternative.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 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 distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter]. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. If the gentleman would continue to yield, has the deficit not gone down?

Mr. SABO. What, Mr. Chairman?

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, in 1981 we had similar supply-side economics as the majority is projecting today. In 1981 we were told that by 1984 the budget would be in balance. Instead, we had a deficit of $175 billion. When we were told we should cut taxes and something good would happen to the deficit, instead it exploded. Spending exploded under the Reagan program and the deficit went to $175 billion, under the same theory that the majority leadership has today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner]. (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, one is always faced with choice, and alternatives are never as perfect as one would like them. I was a strong supporter of the coalition budget, which was just, I think unfortunately, defeated on the House floor. That was my preference as the best way to achieve a balanced budget. Now I offer another alternative, the budget as presented by the President of the United States. As an alternative to the Republican proposal, it is clearly far superior for a number of reasons. It does balance in 6 years, as scored by CBO; but, more important, it makes very fundamental reforms in how we run numerous governmental programs but is still fair to beneficiaries. It does make fundamental changes in Medicare but does it in a fashion that does not do long-term damage to the program like those proposed by the Republican majority. It makes fundamental change in reform of Medicaid in a way to save money for both the Federal and State and local governments, but it still continues to assure adequate health care for the vulnerable, elderly, disabled, and children in our society. It has fiscal restraints as it relates to discretionary spending, but still provides the opportunity to invest in education and training, research and development, and investing in the basic infrastructure of this country. It reforms welfare in a fashion that is tough on work, not tough on kids. So, Mr. Chairman, at this point, I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote for the President's budget as an alternative that is clearly superior for the American public and for the future of our economy to the proposal of the Republican majority.