Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], a member of our committee. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, may I first again congratulate my friend from Ohio in successfully bringing to this House his vision and the vision of the majority, a budget for the next several years. I know it is not easy. It involves lots of tough decisions. I do not agree with your product, but I respect your ability to bring this product before us today. However, I must say to the majority, I think the fact that we are only spending 2 hours debating a bill of this magnitude is really a disgrace to this institution. Mr. Speaker, throughout this year, Congress has been locked in a profound debate over two competing visions of America's future and what those visions mean for American families, workers and the most vulnerable among us. Today with this budget we have a clear statement of what the Republican vision for America is all about. This budget is their answer to complex questions about the role of Government and about the best way to balance the Federal budget. It is an answer that affluent Americans will welcome. It is an answer the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our society will receive with open arms, because they will be enriched by the policies this budget represents. For millions of Americans, this budget is no answer at all. For them it does not represent the best of American values. Instead, it represents a one-sided attack on lower and middle-income citizens who will see the doors of opportunity close as chances to better themselves disappear. Under this budget, millions of low-income families will see the safety net that ensures them adequate food, shelter and medical care shredded. So I say to my Republican colleagues, you must now justify your budget to the American people. You must tell them why $245 billion in tax breaks is fair when you impose new taxes on low-income workers. You must explain to them how making it difficult if not impossible for millions of our citizens to obtain adequate health care is the type policy that will renew America. Americans will also want to know how your extreme cuts in nutrition, education, job training, transportation and research will move this country forward when we have many years of evidence that these investments enhance our economic future and the well-being of our society. And you must explain how eliminating work incentives and reducing work opportunities will assist us in our efforts to move people from welfare to work. I find the answers you have provided in this budget are not only inadequate, but also mean-spirited and destructive of our society. Mr. Speaker, one of the most troubling aspects of the Republican budget is that it will escalate the 20-year trend that has pushed income inequality in this country to its highest level ever. Clearly we can do better for our families, our workers and our economy. I urge my colleagues to reject this Republican budget and to begin to work together to forge a balanced budget that is fair to all Americans and that strengthens our Nation's economy and America's future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] for the answer to the question of whether the military COLA's are back to April or not?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln]. (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to make it clear that today's debate is not about balancing the budget: I support balancing the Federal budget. Today's debate is about the priorities we set in going about achieving a balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, it is because of the priorities that are established in this reconciliation bill that I sadly must oppose this conference agreement even though it achieves a goal I have long desired of this Congress--that of achieving a balanced budget. The process itself under which this bill has been considered has inevitably cost it its ability to be signed into law. It is a travesty that when the very thing Americans want most--responsibility in Federal fiscal affairs--that objective is being compromised by backroom deals orchestrated by Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership. Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget approved this year was bad. It called for a huge tax cut to be paid for through drastic reductions in health care and major cuts in food and farm programs. That terrible budget yielded an even worse result in the package we have before us: It slashes health care for our seniors, devastates programs that provide assistance for children in poverty, and totally eliminates the farm programs that have so successfully safeguarded our Nation's food security. And it is easy to see how the Republican leadership took it from bad to worse. All Americans know that at its very core, our form of government depends on openness. Good policy development requires a fair opportunity for all sides to be heard. We have this terrible bill before us because that basic principle has been abandoned. In this agriculture deal--engineered by Speaker Gingrich and Mr. Armey--there are a shocking number of instances where Democratic principles were cast aside: There has not been one hearing on this proposal in either the House Agriculture Committee or the Senate Agriculture Committee and it eliminates farm programs. Not one subcommittee has had the opportunity to consider this bill's provisions: and it eliminates farm programs. Only the full House Agriculture Committee has debated this plan--and a bipartisan majority of the committee defeated it. Nevertheless, agricultural policy experts Gingrich and Armey took what was defeated in the Agriculture Committee, made their own modifications in the plan--and forced it into the reconciliation bill. The one proposal a bipartisan majority of the Agriculture Committee did adopt--one to help ease the burden on rural communities by making additional infrastructure improvement loans available--was arbitrarily stripped out by Gingrich leadership. Subsequently, conferees were appointed in the traditional way-- Members from the majority and the minority. But the agreement was reached and Democratic conferees were completely shut out of the negotiations. Not only that--even the Republican conferees never once met until after the Speaker cut his deal: and what does this deal do? It completely eliminates farm programs; without debate; in the dark of night; behind closed doors; a deal manufactured by the Gingrich-Armey leadership. Mr. Speaker, there are no provisions related to the dairy program in this bill. The way that happened is a case study in how wrong things can go when we attempt to develop national policy without any input from the American people. From the start, the dairy farmers themselves knew and understood that all farmers would have to bear some of the burden of the cuts. They made several different proposals toward that end. Normally, then, what we would do is convene our subcommittees and our committee, we would have hearings to talk about the pros and cons of the different proposals; we would debate; we would argue; and we would vote. But this year: We did not have any hearings related to the specific proposals, the members of the Dairy Subcommittee, did not meet and did not consider any alternatives; the full committee only had the 1 day of markup and that was to discuss all farm program issues; and the members of the conference committee were never once convened to discuss how dairy policy should be addressed. As a result, the current dairy program will become extinct even sooner than programs for other commodities, all for the lack of a fair, honest, and open debate. Mr. Speaker, all of the shortcuts the leadership has taken in order to be in a position to ram their priorities through Congress have gotten us very lost. By making its policies in the dark--by rejecting the most basic values of our deliberative system--the Gingrich leadership has imperiled our Nation's food production system, endangered seniors and children in poverty, and compromised the very trust of the people who put them in office. Mr. Speaker, for nearly an entire year, the Republican leadership in this Congress has neglected the Nation's business, precipitated a crisis of unprecedented proportions, and completely ignored the will of the American people. The American people do not want this bill, and that is why the President will veto it. Let us hope that when the Republican leadership gets a second chance, it will act to earn back the trust of the people in their Congress.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].

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

Mr. SABO. Mrs. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Republican plan, which sets the wrong priorities for our Nation and irresponsibly puts cutting taxes ahead of balancing the Federal budget. The real debate is not about whether we balance the budget, but about how we do it. We must be fair, we must be responsible, and we must preserve our Nation's commitment to the elderly, families, and young people. I'm proud to have voted for a balanced budget plan--the Orton/ Stenholm plan--that reflects these priorities and values. This plan would balance the budget without cutting or raising taxes; restores funding to Medicare and Medicaid, and fully funds vital investments such a education and medical research. This plan includes tough cuts in government and real welfare reform. This plan we are voting on today fails the test of fairness. It fails the test of priorities and values. It is unfair to America's senior citizens to target Medicare and Medicaid for more than half the cuts needed to balance the budget and cut taxes by $245 billion. It is irresponsible to cut student loans and other education funding when education is more critical than ever to succeeding in the new information-age economy. And it is wrong to raise taxes on families earning $25,500 or less, while reducing taxes for higher income earners. I am especially concerned about the impact of the proposed Medicare, Medicaid, and National Institutes of Health cuts on the quality of the health care we receive in this country. These cuts would devastate medical education and research, reduce the availability of specialized care for all Americans and any care at all for some people, and increase costs for all of us through higher insurance costs and local property taxes. In my district alone, this budget will result in the loss of $1 billion or more to Texas Medical Center hospitals such as Hermann, St. Luke's, Ben Taub, M.D. Anderson, Methodist, and Texas Children's Hospital. These world-class facilities are critical to training our future doctors and to conducting research into diseases such as cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and AIDS. There is no doubt that medical education will suffer under this Republican plan. This plan would cut $9 billion total from indirect and direct medical education funding, the costs associated with training our new physicians. Indirect medicate education would be reduced from 7.7 to 5.0 percent in 2002. Direct medical education would be reduced by capping the number of medical students and reducing reimbursements for subspecialty training, such as cardiology. There would no longer be any adjustments for expanding the number of medical students. As our population ages, it is likely we will need more physicians. This bill takes us in the opposite direction. The Republican plan would create a new medical education trust fund totaling $13.5 billion. I support the concept of an all-payer trust fund for medical education. However, I am concerned about the structure of this trust fund. The Republican plan would reimburse medical schools according to a complex formula. Fifty percent of their reimbursement would be based upon the number of MedicarePlus enrollees treated at their hospitals. If a hospital does not treat a sufficient number of managed care MedicarePlus patients, they would lose money. This is a backdoor effort to reduce patient choice by coercing hospitals into treating Medicare patients only through managed care. Managed care enrollment should be voluntary, not coerced. The other 50 percent for medical education would be based upon the past spending on IME and DME funding. Again, this formula does not provide for any changes in medical education programs, so any new programs would not receive Federal funding. This bill not only harms Medicare and medical education but it may destroy Medicaid. It completely repeals the entitlement of health care to poor women, children, and the disabled as well as long term care for senior citizens. It replaces it with a block grant formula which punishes high growth states such as Texas by some $5 billion, at the expense of New York and Pennsylvania. I am deeply concerned about the Medigrant program that would replace Medicaid. For those hospitals that treat a large number of Medicaid patients, there will no longer be guaranteed payments for carrying for these patients. The necessary safety net for the elderly, children, and the disabled will be eliminated. Current law provides guaranteed coverage for pregnant women, children, elderly, and the disabled up to 185 percent of the federal poverty line. The net effect of these Medicaid cuts will be to reduce coverage for our most vulnerable families. For Texas Children's Hospital, where 50 percent of their patients are enrolled in Medicaid, this plan would reduce reimbursement by $100 million. Texas Children's Hospital will continue to treat uninsured patients, but they will no longer be reimbursed by the federal/state Medicaid program for these costs. As a result, local property taxes and private employers will pay more to pay for this uncompensated care. More working families will seek services, with no funding to pay for their necessary care. I am not alone in my opposition to these Medicare and Medicaid cuts. Today, I received letters from the American Hospital Association and the Texas Hospital Association in opposition to this Republican plan. Texas hospitals are extremely concerned about the $36 billion budget gimmick, the ``failsafe'' provision, in the Republican plan. Under this provision, the Secretary of Health and Human Service would retroactively reduce reimbursements to health care providers. If a global budget is exceeded, all providers would be subject to more cuts. Hospitals would no longer be guaranteed sufficient revenues to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. In the changing health care marketplace, there will be no ability to recoup these costs from private insurance payers. As a result, jobs at Texas Medical Center are at risk. I believe the net result will be hospitals closures and health care layoffs. I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget. I urge the President to veto this budget. And then I hope we can work together in a bipartisan fashion to balance the budget fairly and responsibly.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], a committee member. (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn]. (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney]. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes 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. SABO. Mr. Speaker, for some reason, my vote was not registered on rollcall vote No. 809, the final passage of the H.R. 250, the Congressional Gift Reform Act as amended. Had my vote been properly recorded, it would have appeared as ``aye'' on agreeing to the resolution.