Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I congratulate the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], and other Members of the coalition for the budget that they present. If our goal is to balance the budget by 2002, this is the alternative that might actually do it. Mr. Chairman, we need a little humility when we project 6 years into the future. Many things can change. But if there is any plan that can actually work, it is the Orton proposal. It is tough, it is realistic, but it is also fair to people. It means less interest costs for the Federal Government. It is the one plan that might actually result in happening what we talk about; that a young family buying a new home might actually have lower mortgage payments because of lower interest rate costs. It is a good proposal, it is fair, it is workable, it is the one that can achieve our goals. I, in the strongest way I can, urge people to vote for this good alternative, and I congratulate the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt]. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just make a couple of comments and then I will yield to others. I will try to be shorter than I was planning on. I hear all this discussion about children. I happen to have a new grandchild. I am a grandfather for the first time, a little over a month ago. It is a new experience. It is nice. But I look outside today, and I hope for the sake of my granddaughter the future is not as dreary and bleak as the weather outside today. I tell my friends on the Republican side that I see their budget, and I worry about it. I hope she grows up in a world where she knows she has to pay her bills, but I also hope she grows up with a sense of obligation and a sense of community that is larger than simply herself or her community or her State, but it also includes a view of the country as a whole in the world. We have important obligations as we move forward to balance the budget, which we should do. But we made important commitments to our seniors in Medicare, and as we reform it and change it, as we must, we must make certain that we do it in a rational way that is sustainable and continues quality health care for all in this country. I fear the Republican proposal, as in so many cases, goes too far. In Medicaid where we deal with health care for the most vulnerable in our society, the numbers are not that far off, but the policy is. My colleagues let the States put billions of dollars out of the program. I could go on in program after program where that is the case. We are going to pass it today. I hope that we only recognize that somehow it is a bargaining position for your side of the aisle. Ultimately I still hope that we can come to some agreement in this session between the Congress and the President and find a solution that is pragmatic rather than ideologically driven so that we can move this whole country forward. Your proposal today is not that solution. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], who served as a very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means and, unfortunately, is leaving us at the end of this session of Congress.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I ask that my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] be permitted to speak out of order on a matter unrelated to the budget that should come to the attention of the House. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Murtha was allowed to speak out of order.) moment of silent prayer for chief of naval operations, adm. jeremy m. boorda

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we impose discipline on discretionary spending. We did it in 1993. I just have to say to my friend, the chairman of the committee, I am curious that if it was his program that finally passed, why he had to shut the Government for Christmas. There were some issues at odds: Funding for education, for environmental protection, for inspection of safety, very important priorities. That is the difference. Frankly, there are very important differences over the future: Over educational funding, training, research and development; significant differences between the President's budget and its potential for doing good things for the future of our economy, things that are left out of your budget.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and member of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Before my friend from New Jersey starts and lest I forget, I request unanimous consent that the last 30 minutes of debate on the minority side, which is allocated to the Joint Economic Committee, be controlled by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott], and that he have the authority to yield time to other Members.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the hard-working gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], a real knowledgeable Member on health care.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDermott. Mr. Chairman, I listen to this and I think that anybody who is watching it or listening to it in their office would ask themselves, who should I believe? Now, the last Speaker got up here and said that we ought to stop scaring the seniors. I agree with that. It was the Republican proposal that scared the seniors in the first instance. And for those individuals who know who Yogi Berra is, Yogi Berra once said, when asked about a particular event, it is kind of deja vu all over again. What we are seeing today is the same plan they rolled out here last year. They did not change anything. Oh, they have tinkered with it a little bit. They said they are not going to fool with the senior citizens premiums. They are not going to raise it up to 31 percent; they are going to hold it at 25 percent. Now, of course that is the House. Now, we all know it will pass out of the House and go over to the Senate. Is there any agreement with the Senate on that; does anybody know? No, there is no agreement. This is a House proposal, and we will get the same wrangle and, just watch, we will get the same jerking around. Now, instead of the part B premiums, the House GOP is going to cut hospitals because they do not want to cut doctors. The part B, as my colleagues know, pays for the doctor bills, and they do not want to cut doctors because they made a deal with them. They said, ``If you will support our plan, we will give you a couple of things, and one of them is balance billing.'' Now, remember the history of balance billing. Back in 1985 we said that doctors had to accept what Medicare paid when it paid a senior citizen's bill. The doctor could not balance bill. For almost 11 years they have not been able to balance bill. But the Republicans said to the doctors, ``Look, if you will support our plans to cut the daylights out of Medicare, we will let you balance bill.'' So whatever Medicare pays, senior citizens can expect that the doctors will pile on an additional balance bill on top of that. Now, in addition to that, we have to remember that the Speaker said, public statement, that he expects the traditional Medicare plan to wither on the vine. Now, how do they expect to cause this withering on the vine? The traditional plan that most people are in, they simply are not going to give the kind of increases that will make it possible for doctors to stay in that, so doctors will say, we do not want any seniors, and the only place a senior will be able to get their health care is to go into a managed care plan. Now, by doing that, that means they will have moved all senior citizens into managed care and they simply are going to squeeze people down. It is very clear the plan the laid out. It is going to cost seniors $1,000 more a year by the year 2002. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of scaring that has gone on. It ought to stop. This same plan is being rolled out here again, and this should be enough in itself to defeat this budget resolution.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to simply say that was about the most inaccurate description of what has happened I have seen. The fact is the bulk of the new revenues last year applied to changes in the income Tax Code for people with taxable incomes of over $140,000, which means they have close to a gross income of $200,000. The surcharge applies to incomes over $250,000, probably gross taxable income over $250,000, gross income of $300,000 or more. I have to indicate also to the gentleman that the numbers he is using on this chart of average taxes assumes or averages in the Ross Perots with the rest of everyone. That is clearly inaccurate. It assumes that the cost of shelter is only 15 percent, and all of a sudden here a while ago, in the housing bill, the gentleman was trying to increase rents to over 30 percent of income for people in low-income housing. Grossly inaccurate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, here we are again, a repeat of 1995. I represent a party that in 1993 produced real deficit reduction. We did not simply talk about it. We produced it, and the deficit has fallen in half. We come today to face the question of how we continue to put our Federal fiscal house in order, but how to do it in a fashion that is fair and workable. One of the most important programs that America passed some 30 years ago was Medicare, to assure that elderly Americans had adequate health care. I congratulate my Republican friends on finally making one change in your proposal. You have accepted the President's position that the base premium for part B Medicare should not exceed 25 percent of total cost, and I congratulate you on that change. Unfortunately, as I look at the details of your program, however, I discover that while you appear to have been easing your Medicare cuts over the 6-year period before 2002, that in reality, at the end of that time, the provider cuts in the final year, 2002, will actually have to be deeper and make Medicare more vulnerable than was your program as it passed the Congress and was vetoed by the President. That is hardly progress, my friends. We find throughout this budget a variety of sugar coating to make it look a little bit better than the radical agenda of 1995. But when we look at its long-term impact, we find that in many cases, it is as bad or worse than what the President fortunately had to veto. And Medicare is one of those cases. The cuts, let me say again, to that program in 2002 under your program of today, they are going to have to be deeper than the cuts that you were proposing just a few months ago that the President, fortunately, vetoed. We will have some more to say on that subject, much more, as we discover that your budget of 1996 is just simply a repeat of the unfortunate program of 1995. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne].

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Act sets up procedures to allow the appropriations process to move forward in situations when the budget resolution is behind schedule. I would like to inquire of the Chair whether these procedures have been followed. In particular, if the conference report on the budget resolution is not adopted by April 15, section 603 of the Budget Act directs the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to submit to the House a spending allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for the coming fiscal year. The allocation is to be based on the discretionary spending limits set by law. Its purpose is to allow the House to begin work on appropriation bills. Section 603 of the Budget Act requires this allocation to be filed as soon as practicable after April 15. When I was chairman of the Committee on the Budget, I submitted this allocation when it was required, and my predecessor, Leon Panetta, did as well. If we are to avoid running the Government on continuing resolutions again this year, it is essential that the appropriations process get started. The April 15 deadline set by the Budget Act for completion of the budget resolution passed more than a week ago, and the House markup has not even been scheduled. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether a fiscal year 1997 spending allocation to the Committee on Appropriations has been submitted to the House as required by section 603 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman cannot be here. The gentleman knows I am making this inquiry.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, let me indicate that this was a process adopted in 1990 to make sure that appropriations could move forward in the event no budget resolution is adopted. In 1991, April 15 came on a Monday. The allocation to appropriations was filed on April 18. In 1992, April 15 came during Easter recess. The House reconvened on April 28 and the allocation was filed on April 30. In 1994, April 15 was a Friday. The allocation was filed on Tuesday. Let me indicate that this is a process established so that appropriations can move forward. It does not prejudge what the 602(b) allocations internally in that committee should be, but it should be followed so that committee can begin working, avoid the problems we had this year on the continuing resolution. It does not prejudge how the Committee on Appropriations makes internal allocations. The majority has full flexibility to move forward, if they desire in a partisan way, with the 602(b) allocation. They could begin negotiations with the minority Democrats and administration to resolve what we are now resolving 6 months late at this point of the year. They have that discretion. I urge, if it has not been followed, that the majority follow the law, give that allocation to Appropriations, so that negotiations can begin within the appropriating process so we do not have to go through the 13 continuing resolutions of this year and the budget process, whenever it is going to occur, whatever form it is going to take, or at what time we eventually get to the conference agreement, can proceed. But we should not be shortening the time that the Committee on Appropriations needs and which under the law they should be able to begin now.

Mr. SABO

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, why is it the trust fund only pays 50 percent of FAA operating costs, when all the studies show that 85 percent is related to civilian air travel? Has not, in effect, general revenue substantially subsidized the operation of FAA over the last several years?

Mr. SABO. Now I understand why the gentleman may need this amendment, because of that language. Do I also understand that the Line Item Veto Act does not apply to contract authority in the same fashion as it applies to other discretionary spending?