Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement]. (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I speak to the substance, let me congratulate my friend from Ohio on his job of chairing the Committee on the Budget and working with the Republican leadership. I was one at the beginning who thought he would do what he said. He has put a package together that I expect will pass the House today that does reflect the values and priorities of the majority. I strongly disagree with those values and priorities, but he has done it with grace. He has done it with skill. I know it is not easy to put a package together. We will talk about the substance of that package today, but his job that is his responsibility within his caucus, we should not give him praise. He has done it too well. They should give him significant praise because he has accomplished the goals of his caucus. We disagree with that, and in time we will move on. Mr. Chairman, what the House is undertaking today is not simply a debate about balancing the Federal budget. This is a debate much more profound. It is about two very different visions for America's future and what those visions mean for America's families, workers, and the most vulnerable among us. The Republican vision is clear. Yesterday, on the same day we began debate on this massive budget bill, the Republican leaders in both the House and Senate voiced pride in their desire to dismantle the Medicare Program. The Speaker of the House sees the Medicare Program only in terms of politics. He says that Republicans could not eliminate Medicare right now because it is not politically smart. But he then hastens to add that he would like to see Medicare eventually wither on the vine. This is not a vision to renew America. And it is one that we should all reject. On the same day, the leading Republican Presidential candidate declared that he was one of only 12 to vote against the creation of the Medicare Program 30 years ago. With pride he said he was ``fighting the fight, voting against Medicare.'' And so we now move to the budget package to be voted on in the House today. The choices are clear. My Republican colleagues will put forward a vision that rewards the wealthiest and most powerful interests in our society at the expense of the most vulnerable Americans. They will raise taxes on low-income working families while lavishing massive tax breaks on the affluent. They will make it difficult, if not impossible, for millions of citizens to obtain adequate health care. They will cut funding for nutrition, education, transportation and scientific research even though we have many years of evidence that these investments enhance our society and our economic future. They will ask people to move from welfare to work at the same time they are eliminating work incentives and reducing work opportunities, and child care benefits. And, at a time investment in education is becoming increasingly important to the health of our economy, they will cut job training and increase college costs for millions of Americans seeking to better themselves. One of the most troubling aspects of the Republican vision is that it will escalate the 20-year trend that has pushed income inequality in this country to its highest level ever--all so that wealthy Americans can enjoy large tax breaks they don't need. In short, throughout this budget process, Republicans have engaged in a one-sided attack on lower and middle-income Americans which will ultimately close the doors of opportunity that lead to a prosperous Nation and a higher standard of living for everyone. So, Mr. Chairman, I call upon my colleagues to reject a vision of America that seeks to reward those who have already prospered in our economy while imposing burdens on those who have not.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] be allowed to control the first 30 minutes of debate on our side, and have the authority to yield to other Members, and that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder] be allowed to control the following 10 minutes and have the authority to yield to other Members.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, for accuracy in history, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skaggs amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the Skaggs amendment to strike title VI from H.R. 2127, and put an end to efforts to prohibit political advocacy by organizations that receive Federal grants. Today we are considering fiscal year 1996 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. It is largely through the funding cuts in this legislation that the new Republican leadership hopes to balance the budget by the year 2002 while simultaneously increasing defense spending and cutting taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations. This legislation tells American workers and students, the children and the elderly, the middle class and the disadvantaged to absorb painful budget cuts so that the very wealthiest can prosper further still. This objective is at the core of the Republicans' fiscal agenda. Equally disturbing, however, is the fact that this Republican bill reaches far beyond domestic budgeting matters. It actually attempts to regulate the participation of some organizations in the political process by curbing their ability to engage in political advocacy. Provisions in title VI--adopted as the Istook amendment--would effectively suppress the political voices of certain organizations by severely restricting advocacy by those receiving Federal grants. Current law already bans the use of public funds for political advocacy. However, these provisions extend the prohibition far beyond the reach of Federal dollars. [[Page H 8393]] Federal grantees would be forbidden to use more than 5 percent of their own private funds to engage in political advocacy. A very select group of organizations would be impacted by these prohibitions. In an unjustifiable break with current laws, the political activities of Federal grantees alone are singled out while Federal contractors are left alone. Additionally, the provisions is drafted so that it will impose greater burdens on grantees that operate on a shoe-string budget than those who are well-funded. Federal grantees would be permitted to use up to 5 percent of their budget for political advocacy, or up to 1 percent if their annual budget exceeds $20 million. Therefore, a corporate grantee with a $100 million budget would still be permitted to spend $1 million for political advocacy. It is unlikely that such a large sum would force the company to alter their lobbying budget significantly from its levels under current law. However, a nonprofit organization with a $100,000 budget could confront considerable difficulties with a $5,000 ceiling imposed on its political advocacy. Consequently, corporate and business entities which receive Federal grants and contracts would not be forced to change the way they do business. Small nonprofit organizations would. I believe these provisions were drafted in order to silence particular voices. It is no coincidence that those nonprofits which oppose the Republicans' fiscal and social agendas are the organizations impacted by this proposal. In order to uncover the true intent of this provision. I offered an amendment to the Istook amendment when the Appropriations Committee considered the Labor, Health and Human Services bill. My amendment would have extended the same prohibitions to the beneficiaries of Federal contracts and loans. If the intent of the original amendment was to safeguard taxpayer dollars, then proponents should have viewed my amendment as an improvement. If, however, the intent of the original amendment was to curb a certain type of political advocacy, then my amendment would have been regarded as an unacceptable obstruction to that goal. My amendment failed in an 18-29 vote, and the Istook amendment was adopted. Is this what the American people want? I don't believe citizens want to bias the political debate in this country by silencing university researchers and children's advocates, while extending open arms and deep pockets to legions of corporate lobbyists. We are fortunate that those who drafted this proposal were unavailable to assist in drafting the Bill of Rights. Title IV engages in blatant first amendment infringement. It seeks to prohibit free speech in public policy making. It is shameful that such a deliberate attempt to silence particular points of view has worked its way through the legislative process to confront us here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to put an end to this. Vote in favor of the Skaggs amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, a little while ago, we dealt with Medicaid. It is a Federal program. The Federal Government pays 50 to 70 percent of the cost and the House voted to say that in the name of States' rights, a woman who has been raped or a woman who suffered from incest and become pregnant should not have funds available for an abortion. Now we are saying that in the university or a college, the Congress is going to tell them how they run their student fees. How ridiculous are we getting? Talk of arrogance of power. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is right: If a governor wants to decide, a legislature, the board of regents, the student government. But all this talk of decentralization, all of a sudden we are trying to tell universities and collages how to run their student fees. Let us stop it. Let us go on to serious debate.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest to the two leaders that there is a longtime traditional event on Tuesday evening whose time was cleared with the leadership months ago.

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

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Is that the intent of the Chair?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, just so Members can understand, my understanding is that if this unanimous-consent is agreed to, there are no additional votes tonight.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Foglietta amendment. Mr. Chairman, operating subsidy is crucial for the operation of our transit systems, both in rural and urban America. I represent urban America. I represent an area with bus systems. The reality is that for thousands of people who live in our urban centers, the only way they have mobility is through the bus system. In other areas it may be rail, but in mine it is all bus. There is a significant number of people, I believe today the number I heard was over half the people, in poverty have no cars. Most of them are working. The only way they get to their job is by riding a bus. Buses are labor intensive. You have to have somebody operating them. You cut this operating subsidy, States are cutting back, the only thing that is going to happen is that the rate structure is going to go up, or they are going to cut routes in our urban areas, and what it means is fewer and fewer people can get to work. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about welfare reform, of requiring people to go from welfare to work. I think we all agree with that. But the reality for thousands of people who live in our urban centers today is the only way they are going to be able to get to a job is to ride transit. We are either going to eliminate the service or make it more expensive. The amendment makes sense. My only problem is I wish it were more generous. It is a very moderate reinstatement of funds for operating purposes. It makes good sense, and the House should adopt it.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], the new father in our caucus, the person who does not put Will to sleep by singing lullabies but by giving him a lecture on the budget process. And it works. (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].

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

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names: [Roll No. 455]