Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and Members, this is not an easy bill to devise a motion to instruct on because the reality is we have a bad House bill and we have a bad Senate bill. So most of the options are pretty bad. So our motion in some cases says, ``If you've got a bad provision and there is a worse provision, please stick with the bad provision.'' It does not get us anyplace, but, as my colleagues know, what the House did with the earned income tax credit is incredibly bad. What the Senate did is much worse. So stick with the House provision. There are some parts of the bill, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to offer a motion to instruct on. Both the House and the Senate deal very poorly with low-income seniors who today qualify for having their premiums paid and their deductibles paid by Medicaid. Neither of them are adequate; they are the same. It is impossible within the scope of conference to say to improve it because they are the same. But there are a few things, a few items, we might suggest to our House conferees: Do the Senate provision; they are not quite as bad. They slightly improve a bad bill. Do not do this dumb pension reversion that raises $9 billion temporarily, but takes $40 billion out of trust funds for pensions for American workers. The reality is, even to balance the budget, it does not do us much good because in the year 2002 it is scored as an asterisk that actually loses a little bit of money, so it gives us some temporary receipts, creates a raid on pension funds. Just simply do not do it. Follow the Senate's lead, overwhelming vote on the Senate floor. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, Federal nursing home regulations did not happen just because somebody wanted to pass some Federal laws. They emerged because over the years there was very serious, fundamental problems in nursing homes as they dealt with the disabled and the elderly population of this country. They emerged because there was a clear need. If they need reform, reform it, but do not throw them out. My colleagues, stick with what the Senate said. Let us keep those Federal standards. Mr. Speaker and Members, we are going to have a new Medicaid or medigrant program on which we are going to spend over a hundred billion dollars a year. Most certainly the Federal Government can say there are a few things we should do. Stick with the Federal regulations of nursing homes unless there are more comprehensive ones at the State level, but let us make sure that in structuring this program the States at a minimum keep coverage for low-income pregnant women, and children and disabled people. That is not asking too much. Over $100 billion of Federal funds, and the suggestion is that we should sort of sit back and be oblivious of what any requirement of those funds are. Mr. Speaker, I have spent many years in my life dealing with the question of Federalism. This kind of Federalism of this much Federal money, and no expectation that these basic requirements should be part of it, is just [[Page H 11414]] nuts. So our motion to instruct is very basic. Do not do that dump pension deal. Keep the Federal nursing home standards so our disabled and elderly can be in safe surroundings when they have to go to a nursing home. As we provide over $100 billion a year to the States, let us simply say that low-income pregnant women and children and disabled people should be able to get health coverage. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote for the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. SABO. I notice the gentleman from Ohio did not listen through all the 30 minutes of speeches on our side.

Mr. SABO. I listened to the gentleman from Ohio tell us that, after he had been in front of the Committee on Rules for 2\1/2\ hours, he was tired of hearing himself, so I assume he would not yield himself 29 minutes.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. SABO. We have 1 minute remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SABO. So, for anyone who is interested, that vote then would probably come after the vote on the motion to instruct.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to ask for a recorded vote on this, and I am curious. Is the intent to move to the vote on Bosnia before we go to the motion to instruct?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question on process and procedure?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza]. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, now I am personally aggrieved that I would not even move the gentleman's inner feelings of his heart when he is preparing, here at Halloween, to dismantle American agriculture, to cut its throat, to bleed it to the last drop of blood, and it had no impact. Mr. Speaker, that is what I call the arrogance of power. The gentleman has just demonstrated that very well. Mr. Speaker, very respectively and kindly and with the admiration and respect that I have for the gentleman, I am personally aggrieved that I would not move the gentleman at this point.

Mr. SABO. Unless the gentleman gets motivated?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he is planning on a 30-minute speech.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] want to yield to anyone?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, as I think everyone agrees, this is a major rewrite of agriculture policy in this country then being done by five members from that committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I come to protest the composition of the conference and to object to going to conference. Mr. Speaker, the word I had, up until the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] mentioned, was that we would have one conferee from the minority from the Committee on Agriculture. I am now informed that it would be two. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, there was a book written once by a great American called ``The Arrogance of Power.'' We are experiencing that at this precise moment. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Agriculture debated and voted three times. None of the measures prevailed, therefore, the Committee on Agriculture did not submit a measure by a majority vote to the conference committee. But there is something called the Freedom to Farm Act that was then placed by either the Committee on the Budget or the Committee on Rules in the legislation without any contribution, debate, or participation of the Committee on Agriculture. It was done by the leadership; by the leadership of the Committee on the Budget and by the leadership of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I protest that move vehemently. I think it is an insult to American agriculture. I think it is an insult to the American consumers who are the ultimate recipients of the legislation enacted heretofore by the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that this is not only demeaning but insulting, that a revamping of the farm legislation is being done with only two members of the minority in the Committee on Agriculture and that they would be outvoted, nonetheless, by non- Committee on Agriculture general members of the conference. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the Department of Agriculture established by President Lincoln, this has not happened. In our bipartisan handling of legislation, my experience here has always been that we come up with a bipartisan approach, consensus approach to the legislation by which agriculture, to some extent rural America, and the consumers would be serving under or receive the benefit thereof. Mr. speaker, I protest. I know that I have heard it for so many years from our colleagues on the other side that we do not have the votes, so all we can do is expose, Mr. Speaker, the damage that has been done that can be done, that damage that it will do to the legislative system. I think that it basically begins the erosion of this great institution called the House of Representatives, which we once called, and still call, the people's House. Mr. Speaker, no longer will it be the people's House, but rather it will be by ad hoc committees at the whim of whoever is in the leadership. And if this is the way that we will act heretofore, [[Page H 11410]] then the people have lost. The people have lost their ability to participate. The people have lost their ability to provide counsel to the members of the different committees. It is the people's loss, it will be if we go to conference with these numbers and this distribution. It will be the people's loss and the people are the ones that hopefully will rebel at the appropriate time. But as of now, the dismantling of the people's House, this great institution called the House of Representatives, that is being nullified by what we do this evening. And I feel sad, really, and aggrieved that this would happen with such little ability to protest, to challenge, and the disruption that will happen in the future. Mr. Speaker, I have the ability only to address this House for 5 minutes. This is not right. This is not fair. This is an arrogant abuse of power, and this is an insult to the history of this House and to the American people. I have had my say, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that the people out there realize, all of those involved in agriculture, all of those involved in rural America, all of those that are looking forward to bettering their lives, to bettering the environment, to bringing water into the countryside, to continue bringing electricity, to continue bringing telephone, to continue providing these things that enhance the quality of life. The American people are the best-fed people in the world for the least amount of disposable income of any major industrialized nation in the world. That has been done because of the system of this House, the system of the committee, and we have done and followed through with precedent that has been laid heretofore. So, Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness in my heart that I make this statement that the people of the United States of America lose tonight. Especially those in agriculture and rural America lose tonight, because they will not have an opportunity to address the issues fairly, equitably. Mr. Speaker, I understand the numbers, but the numbers are not what we are challenging per se; that there is a majority and that there is a minority. But the ability to represent the people has been denied, has been denied, and the people lose. The people will be the losers tonight. It is so said--the arrogance of power prevails and the people lose.

Mr. SABO. So, the general conferees, if they agreed, would outvote the Committee on Agriculture members 8 to 5?

Mr. SABO. But, Mr. Speaker, I would still be eight general conferees and only five from the Committee on Agriculture?