Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California 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 gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] (Mrs. LOWEY 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 California [Mr. Miller]. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop]. (Mr. BISHOP 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 gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking member of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard], a member of our committee.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker this is one of those issues where, frankly, I am tempted in a variety of ways in how I should react because there are things within this resolution I agree with. My advice to the administration has been for a period of time that their goal should be to have a 7-year balanced budget, that they should also use the more cautious and conservative economic assumptions of CBO, that a variety of other differences need to be looked at. Neither CBO nor OMB have divine wisdom, and one needs to examine those. On the other hand, I also am going to vote ``no'' tonight in the strong belief that this is the wrong thing to do at this point in time. What we should be doing is simply passing a clean continuing resolution to deal with the reality that we have not passed our appropriation bills. Then the majority should pass their reconciliation bill, I assume, on Friday. It will be vetoed, and then we should get on with serious negotiations. Part of this is posturing. The rhetoric gets very hot around here, and if it were not for the fact that people were not working, I think the whole institution would be better off if everybody went home for a while and cooled off and calmed things down and then get back to work. It is getting increasing polarized. While I believe that we should move to a balanced budget in 7 years, using cautious economic assumptions, I also read today, I think accurately quoted, the leader, not of this body but of another institution involved in these negotiations, that there were four pillars to the Republican program. One was a 7-year balanced budget; the second was Medicare reform, and I am sure he meant his version of Medicare reform; welfare reform, and I am sure he meant his version of welfare reform; and a tax cut, and he meant his version of a tax cut. And those were nonnegotiable demands. This is one of those four pillars, and to pretend tonight that somehow we take up one of those pillars, that we are taking up one of those pillars when those three other pillars still exist in the minds of most of the majority, would be dreadfully wrong. Because, in my judgment, that tax cut is not justified. In my judgment, you cannot have a fair balanced budget with the size and scope of the tax cut proposed by the majority. In my judgment, any tax cut should wait until we balance the Federal budget, not now. Welfare reform, as passed by the majority, and I hate using this word, but, in my judgment, is mean. And the Medicare reform is of such nature that it puts too great a burden on millions of low-income widows in this country, and the scope of the change is such that it simply is not sustainable. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote this evening.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where my friend from California, Mr. Thomas, went. I hope he gets his facts right. Mr. Speaker, the reality is many of us supported an alternative which sustains Medicare, balances the budget, does not provide the type of premium increase for all elderly as in the Republican proposal on an appropriation bill. The reality is my colleagues do not have to go to 31\1/2\ percent of costs. I agree the premium should not go down. But my colleagues are having this huge jump, and at the same time we have millions of poor elderly widows who receive their premiums and their deductibles paid by Medicaid. My colleagues are also cutting that program. so, they are doing premium increases that are not required to stabilize Medicare to balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues are punishing poor, elderly widows because of their Medicaid cuts. That is right; they are mean cuts, and the reason they have to go so deep with the increase in their part B premiums, reductions of benefits to elderly, poor widows in most cases; and do not come with this language about protecting them, my colleagues are not, the facts do not bear our colleagues out in Medicaid; It is simply because they want to pay for their tax cut. We know where the bulk of those benefits go: 50 percent or more to people with incomes over $100,000. So let us get it straight. We do not need to do their extreme things. We can do it reasonably. But even forgetting about that, even if this were a reasonable approach, why should it be on the continuing resolution? Why? This is not a Medicare bill. Our friend from Louisiana has a continuing appropriations bill, and all of a sudden it is a Medicare bill.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we are here today for a very simple reason. There has been gross mismanagement of this session. For no other reason. This is a continuing resolution, to continue appropriations. Why? Because the majority has not been able to pass their appropriation bills, 1\1/2\ months after the fiscal year ended. Why are [[Page H 12098]] they trying to muddy it up with Medicare? Medicare? Medicare is not an appropriation bill. The reality is, before the session ends, we need to deal with Medicare, but we do not need to adopt their extreme agenda of $270 billion of cuts in Medicare, either to stabilize Medicare or to balance the budget. We do not have to increase the premiums on millions of poor elderly in the fashion that they are trying to do today, for either purpose of stabilizing Medicare or balancing the budget. But we should not be arguing that today, on a continuing appropriation bill. Why do they try and put it on? Just to make sure the President will veto it. They can pretend they have done something. They know it is not going to happen. It is phony. But why are they even dealing with Medicare? Because they have not been able to deal with the budget, 1\1/2\ months after the fiscal year ended. You should have been doing that, what you are doing now, in July, but you were off chasing butterflies or something, not doing your work, not getting it organized, so now you come with this dumb bill, crazy provisions in it, trying to stick it to the seniors in this country. We should vote no.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, we should vote this bill down. We should be passing a clean continuing resolution or a clean debt limit extension for a reasonable time. Why are we here today? We are here because this is the most mismanaged legislative session I have seen in 35 years serving in legislative office. It is November 9. The fiscal year began October 1. I fully expected we would need a continuing resolution because the majority would have passed appropriation bills, they would have been vetoed in some cases, and the Congress and administration would be negotiating. Instead, 9 of 13 bills have not passed the Congress. So we need a continuing resolution. Why do we need this bill on the debt ceiling? Because it is now November. The Congress is doing what it should have been doing in July, should have been passing its budget bill, sending it to the President, probably vetoed, then serious negotiations occurring. Instead, we have drifted along all session doing what was not crucial; and here, a month and a half into the fiscal year, the House and Senate is still dealing with the conference report. Shame on us. If we had done our work, this bill would have been on the President's desk before the August recess as it was 2 years ago, negotiations could have occurred in September, maybe into mid-October, and had a solution. Instead, total mismanagement. Mid-November, no budget bill, most of the appropriation bills still hung up in the Congress. Instead, we find ourselves with a debt ceiling extension, with habeas corpus and Commerce and I do not know what all else is in here. Mr. Speaker, we should defeat this bill.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to the chorus of members condemning this horrible crime and extending our sympathy to Mr. Rabin's family and to the people of Israel. I am proud to support this resolution. In the last few days, many have spoken of Yitzhak Rabin's transformation from soldier to statesman. As I see it, however, Yitzhak Rabin did not change. Throughout his life, Yitzhak Rabin lived as a patriot devoted to the creation, defense, survival, and success of Israel and its citizens. Yitzhak Rabin did not undergo a radical transformation. Rather, he lived his life in steadfast defense of his nation. When Israel's very survival depended on its military might, Yitzhak Rabin led its forces in defense of his homeland. When his nation's future depended on its quest for peace, Yitzhak Rabin led that charge with equal fervor and tenacity. Yitzhak Rabin did not change, but he recognized the changes that had occurred in his country and in the world. Prime Minister Rabin could see that Israel's destiny was not to remain an armed camp, a nation in which nearly every family has lost a member to war and violence. He participated in every war his nation fought, and he knew that his people had seen enough war, enough death, enough tears. In a move that was perhaps more courageous than any he had taken in battle, he entered negotiations with the Palestinians. In doing so, he discarded dogma in favor of a very real opportunity for meaningful peace, partnership, and progress. Mr. Rabin was not simply a lofty dreamer. He was a hard-headed pragmatist who did not merely hope for peace. He knew that attaining peace was the only way Israel would achieve true security and satisfaction, and he knew that it would not be easy. The final years of his life were consumed with this pursuit of peace. In a short time, he achieved peace with Jordan and several agreements with the Palestinians, and up to the very end he sought an agreement with Syria. All of this was accomplished in the face of personal vilification and extremist opposition. The presence at his funeral of dignitaries from Arab nations across the region, even some that do not yet have formal ties with Israel, demonstrated the success of his yet incomplete efforts. I join my colleagues in expressing support for the government of Acting Prime Minister Peres and its commitment to building a just and lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. I call upon our Nation and the entire world to learn from the wisdom of Yitzhak Rabin. when his people needed a soldier to protect them, he took up arms. When it needed a statesman to shepherd them to peace, he had the strength and courage to shake hands.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Then that's changed recently?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is dead wrong. We increased the earned income tax credit last year. You are cutting it. You are raiding the employees trust funds, taking pension assets out of them. Your characterization of what the President and others have suggested on pension funds is total distortion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal]. [[Page H 11417]]

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I have described my politics a little bit different. I describe myself as a liberal decentralist. There may not be that many of us around. The best memories of my life, the most fulfilling time of my life was the time I spent in State government. On the other hand, fully understanding the capability of good State government, and most of them are good today, and they were 20 years ago. Still, for States to come and say, we expect to have a blank check of $100 billion, without the basic requirements that you take care of poor children and disabled people; that you throw out, with all the political pressures that exist, nursing home regulations, that is just crazy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. (Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about State government. I spent 18 years in State government. The Federal Government at times frustrated me. There are rules and regulations that need revision, and we need to work on that. I would have never dreamed of coming to the Federal Government and saying give me $100 billion, no conditions. That is what we are doing in this bill. Nursing homes, Federal standards, go, forget about history, forget about history. Those standards came because the conditions were atrocious. Those of us in State government did not do our job, so we got the Federal standards. We did not just throw them out in the wake of history of why they were created, of dealing with the most vulnerable people in our society. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, if I did not convince the gentleman from Ohio, the next person will. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].