Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], distinguished ranking member of what used to be the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I do not know what it is called now. The Committee on Commerce. (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would respond to a quick question, I would ask him, which tax increase of 1993 is repealed in this bill?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SABO. The answer is none.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, this was a bad bill when it left the House. It is a bad bill when it comes back from the Senate. Now it will be a bad bill when it goes to the President. He should veto it. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. We want to balance the budget in 7 years, but how we do it is immensely important. I believe my Republican friends also believe how we do it is immensely important, otherwise I would make a simple offer. If only achieving the goal was the only thing my Republican colleagues care about, we will do it, and they can vote for our product. I do not think they would accept it. Mr. Speaker, we will not vote for their product. We need to get through our differences, get a plan that is fair and moves this country forward, and that is our task in the next several weeks. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill today, and then I and many others stand ready to achieve a 7-year balanced budget that is fair to the American people.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, we have in the Republican plan a unique schedule to balance the budget. The deficit in 1997 will be $25 billion more than it is in 1995. It is a strange path. [[Page H 13620]] Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]. (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minuets to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], my good friend. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. de la GARZA: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2491. Mr. Speaker, while I support the goal of a balanced budget and voted for the Democratic approach to achieving that budget over 7 years, I must take great exception to this agreement which sacrifices one of our most important national goals--that of preserving the health of our rural economy and the adequacy of our Nation's food production system. Mr. Speaker, the Gingrich-Armey conference agreement endangers our Nation's food security. While the cuts initially ordered to be attained in agriculture were irresponsibly drastic, the approach taken by the Republican leadership to eliminate the farm safety net altogether threatens to wreak havoc on the rural economy. No longer will producers be able to count on the Government when its own macroeconomic policies destroy their markets, as happened in the mid-1980's. Under H.R. 2491, agricultural commodity programs--which have been key to our success in ensuring a consistently adequate, safe, and affordable food supply--will end with the 2002 crop year. Mr. Speaker, the Republican plan not only eliminates our Federal farm safety net, but it also makes devastating cuts in programs which allow our agricultural sector to compete with the European Union in farm trade. The future of our agricultural economy is in foreign trade but the Republican plan amounts to unilateral disarmament when our competitors are subsidizing heavily to take away markets that our more efficient producers would otherwise capture. With the tremendous beneficial impact that farm trade has on our economy as a whole, the Republican policy of drastically reducing the export enhancement program is extremely foolhardy. Mr. Speaker, there is substantial agreement now that the budget must be balanced. The American people want it balanced and we are working toward that goal. The Gingrich plan before the House today takes the wrong approach where rural America is concerned. Reductions in discretionary spending totals cut deeply into the programs that are vital to rural Americans. We have to continue to marshal our resources in a way that ensures we do not endanger the future of our rural economy on which our Nation so heavily depends. And yet, without the benefit of a single hearing, the Gingrich-Armey leadership has imposed an entirely new program that eliminates the Government role in ensuring the farmer a fair return. Instead, the Gingrich plan establishes a program of flat payments to farmers: regardless of what they plant; regardless of the level of market prices. Mr. Speaker, farmers in every region of this country have very grave concerns about the agriculture provisions in this bill. They represent a sudden and dramatic abandonment by the Government of its role in sharing the [[Page H 13625]] farmer's risk. Farmers are particularly concerned that this sudden withdrawal of the Federal Government may make the difference in their fight to stay on the farm. Yes, they may know that each year they will get a cash payment, but if prices collapse next year, will that payment be enough? If wheat prices fall to $2.50, how many wheat farmers will be out of business in Kansas, in the Dakotas, in Washington? If cotton prices fall back down to 45 cents, how many cotton growers--spread out all over the south--will survive? If corn prices are under $2, where will the corn belt be? Agriculture deserves more consideration than has been given by this Congress and I am glad that the President has won from Speaker Gingrich a commitment to recognize that fact in upcoming negotiations. Mr. Speaker, other parts of the Republican plan disregard the special needs of the Rural Economy. The cuts it would make in Medicare and Medicaid will have devastating and inordinate effects on rural hospitals and the provision of health care in rural areas. In block granting Medicaid and reducing funding available for low-income health care services, support to health care in the State of Texas alone will be cut by 20 percent. These cuts will fall heavily in rural areas where health care services are sparsely provided to begin with. In a specific move, the Republican plan removes current rules designed to prevent ``spousal impoverishment'' and imposes a new possibility--that a lien could actually be placed on a family farm before the owner's spouse would be eligible to receive public assistance for catastrophic medical services. In addition, the Republican plan eliminates any link between Medicaid spending and localized economic distress. Currently, an economic recession in a heavily rural State would result in increased resources being made available under Medicaid. Under the Republican block grants, the amount to be available--already severely reduced--would become highly inadequate if conditions in the farm economy deteriorated. The Republican plan also has tremendous implications for rural hospitals. Rural residents are chronically underserved. The plan's cuts in payments to hospitals will threaten the viability of many rural hospitals and clinics. In the days ahead, we must act to protect the ability of rural Americans to improve the availability of health care in their areas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 2491. Make no mistake: my colleagues who vote for it are voting to end farm programs. It's a bad bill; it is opposed by the American people; and because of that the President will veto it. I am encouraged, however, that the President and the Congress have now explicitly recognized that we will, in fact, agree on a balanced budget. I am encouraged that we can now sit down in a bipartisan manner and fashion an agriculture policy that will recognize these basics: First, the need to preserve the farm safety net; second, Agriculture has contributed heavily in the past to deficit reduction; third, continuation of investment in rural America is of crucial importance; and fourth, the need to continue to provide the resources necessary to maintain a level playing field with our export competitors. Mr. Speaker, I came here in 1965. The first bill I introduced was a balanced budget amendment, so no one can point a finger at me and say I have not tried. I have served with Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and I respected them always, I respected my colleagues; but when foam comes out of the mouths when they say ``tax and spend liberal Democrats,'' I resent that. As chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, we cut over $50 billion. My colleagues have to respect that; my colleagues have to admire that. We did. If everybody else had done the same thing, we would not be here. And then I had to explain to someone, what is this continuing resolution? I said, so we can continue running the Government. Well, my dear friends, you waited 40 years to get here, and you messed it up the first year. You did not pass your appropriation bills. The President cannot legislate. It is a legislative failure, and you are the majority, and nobody has noted that. You are arguing with the President, Bill Clinton. You did not pass the appropriation bills. It is a legislative failure, and it is on you side of the aisle, and I am sick and tired; and I am not going to abuse anyone, I am not going to do rhetoric, I am not demagoging, I am telling the truth. You did not pass the appropriation bills. It is a legislative failure. I have helped cut some $50 billion in 12 years, not from the poor, not from those that need it, but in the area where it could be judiciously done. So think about that. I am coming over and telling your side, you have been a legislative failure. You waited for 40 years, and you have messed it up.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza]. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, the leader in the Senate is named Dole. The majority is Republican. Do not come to me telling me that the Democrats are holding it up.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, we end this foolishness that we have been in for the last several days, and we get the Government running again. We get the debate focused again on how we go about balancing the Federal budget. Mr. Speaker, what kind of priorities do we deal with? How do we bring the deficit down? Let me speak to that issue briefly. Mr. Speaker, I was one of a number of Democrats who supported an alternative budget that did balance the budget in 7 years. We balanced in 7 years, but we did it in a fashion, reforming health care, Medicaid and Medicare in a fashion that did not penalize poor elderly; that did not drive millions of people out of health care or, as an alternative, substantially increase the costs to State and local government; we reformed welfare in a way that was disciplined and tough and workable, in contrast to Republican plans that would drive literally a million or more kids into poverty. Mr. Speaker, we did it in a fashion that enabled the Federal Government still to have the capacity to deal with education, the environment, and a variety of other programs that we fund on an annual basis. I look now at the program that my Republican friends bring and at their priorities, and what I discover to my amazement is that while they have a program that does, I think a lot of bad things to our society, they also increase the deficit for the next 2 years. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that. This Republican program, which does drastic cuts to health care in this country, which would drive a million or more kids into poverty, which cripples our ability to fund education, the environment and other programs, increases the deficit for the next 2 years. Mr. Speaker, I hope my Republican colleagues are listening. Let me give the numbers. We have had reduced deficits for the last 3 years. Under the Republican agreement, it goes up in 1996. For some reason, that seems to happen in all plans. But then, again, it goes up for the second year, 1997. In comparison to our coalition budget, the Federal deficit in 1997 would be $28 billion higher. Not lower; $28 billion higher. Let me give my colleagues the numbers. Under the coalition budget, $160.4 billion. Under the Republican conference agreement, $189.1 billion. Why is the deficit under their plan $28 billion greater in 1997? A tax cut. So, we not only are cutting at vital American programs to pay for the Republican tax cut, we discover we are also borrowing the money to pay for it. So, Mr. Speaker, we look anxiously forward to the potential to do what the [[Page H 13368]] ranking member of our Committee on Appropriations spoke of, to deal with a balanced budget that is fair and equitable, but also doing it in a fashion that actually reduces the deficit in the immediate future. What I would ask Members to do is vote for this bill. Let us get the Government operating again. Then let us go on to do the real tough negotiations that need to be done so we can get a humane budget that actually brings the Federal budget in balance.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just make this observation. I happen to think we can balance the budget in 7 years. I do not want to balance it in 7 years under the Republican budget. I suspect they do not want to balance it in 7 years in a plan that I would draft. So there are conditions by all of us. So we must sit down and try to work out a very, very difficult, but very important problem.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to compliment the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for his thoughtful statement. We are in this incredible situation where we seem to be arguing how you get to the table, and it is fairly simple: Go. The reality is that we need to pass a continuing resolution because Congress has not passed appropriation bills. Let us get that taken care of and pass the CR. The majority, to their credit, passed a bill reflecting their view of how the budget should be balanced yesterday. I think it is a bad bill. I hope and know the President will veto it. Then you have to negotiate. Let us hope we do not end up quarreling whether it is a square or round table. Let us just get people there. Go. Some of this discussion of scorekeeping, people have to exercise good judgment. The ultimate scorekeeper is Congress and the people who negotiate. CBO is advisory to us. I think we should follow their judgment. But, if they are wrong, then we should look at the facts. The reality is in lots of programs, how you structure them depends on what demographics are projected. CBO may be right, OMB may be right, someone else may be right. The goal of negotiators should be to be as accurate as possible. We tend to say we have this judgment on different predictors. They are all honest, hard-working folks, making their best judgment. Let us hear from them, figure out what is accurate, and structure programs appropriately. Amazingly, I look at revenue projections for 1996, and CBO and OMB come out to the exact dollar, using different assumptions, different methodology. This is all crazy stuff we are talking about here. Let us get our work done. Let us get on with negotiations so we can solve the problem. I think that is what the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is saying.

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

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Sam Gibbons, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)