Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, who has the right to close on this motion?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt]. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the motion to instruct conferees on House Concurrent Resolution 67.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interest Act, and the proposal to eliminate the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). This agency performs a unique advocacy role in formulating our nation's foreign policy. Under this legislation, ACDA's strong and knowledgeable voice on arms control and non-proliferation issues will be muted by a new State Department ``super-bureaucracy.'' The State Department performs the necessarily broad mission of advancing and protecting the global interests of the United States and its citizens. To accomplish its responsibilities, the State Department must consider many different issues as it formulates our Nation's foreign policy. On the other hand, ACDA's mission if sharply focused on strengthening our national security by advocating, formulating, negotiating, implementing, and verifying sound arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament policies and agreements. As a result, ACDA is staffed with physicists, chemists, engineers, and other specialists who spend their entire careers dealing with one issue--arms control. To fold ACDA into the State Department would be a serious mistake. This nation needs ACDA to maintain a strong, independent voice for arms control. Even if the State Department could match ACDA's arms control expertise, the goals of arms control and non-proliferation are sometimes at odds with the broader objectives of the State Department. In fact, if this bill had been enacted thirty years ago, we would not have a nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. In the 1960's, it was ACDA that pressed for the NPT. The State Department had opposed the original negotiations out of deference to friendly countries that wanted to explore the nuclear option. I have listened to the arguments that, because the cold war is over, an independent voice for arms control is no longer needed. One only needs to look at the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran or the recent gas attacks in Japan to understand the continued importance of battling the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and other weapons of mass destruction. Some have also claimed that the reorganization proposed in this bill will save the taxpayers money. However, no study has identified any savings from eliminating ACDA. In fact, a recent Congressional Research Service study has found that merging ACDA into the State Department could actually cost $10 million. Clearly, this legislation doesn't take into account the importance of having a strong and independent arms control and non-proliferation viewpoint within the United States government. Instead, it appears to me that organizational boxes are simply being moved in an arbitrary manner. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, ACDA must be protected.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Here we go again. Once more we have a major piece of legislation before us, and the Republican majority has structured a rule to get around all kinds of serious Budget Act violations. The rule waives four separate sections of the Congressional Budget Act: The section prohibiting spending in excess of the committee's allocation, the section prohibiting consideration of direct spending bills before the budget resolution is in place, the section requiring lending programs be made subject to appropriations, and the section requiring new spending authority to be disclosed in the committee report. These Budget Act violations are not minor. According to CBO, the bill increases direct spending by at least $200 million in budget authority over 5 years. Let me be clear, these are new spending, of direct spending authority, not changes in authorization. The reason we have a Budget Act is to help us think through the budget effects of legislation before we pass it. We should not be waiving the budget rules so cavalierly on such an important bill.

Mr. SABO

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me congratulate Messrs. Orton, Stenholm, Browder, and other Members who have presented this budget. I intend to vote for it. It represents a vary substantial improvement over the Republican base bill, both as it relates to basic fiscal policy and as it relates to dealing with fundamental problems of the American people. I congratulate the gentleman on this amendment and wish him well. I hope his amendment prevails.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly]. Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a picture of the woman I want to talk about today. She came to see me yesterday. Her name is Ms. Betty Glass. She and my husband and I lived in the same neighborhood for many, many years, where my husband and I raised our children. She is a woman who is bright; she understands things. She read the Republican budget. She looks at the figure $280 billion and change in Medicare money. She knows you cannot just get there by efficiency, new technology, by getting rid of fraud. She knows what is going to happen. We talked yesterday about what is going to happen with fees. That neighborhood we live in, people used to be municipal workers, teachers. They are on small pensions. If the fees are increased, it is going to be very difficult. We talked about getting a doctor to take care of somebody who is elderly. profession, but if you squeeze down the fees doctors get, people are going to have a harder time getting that doctor. Then we talked about our town hospital, St. Francis Hospital, that we both go to, and we talked about Mt. Sinai Hospital, and St. Francis and Mt. Sinai had such a hard time, they had to merge. If Medicare is cut back they are going to be squeezed and we don't know if that hospital will stay in business. This woman is like President Clinton. She knows that we have to reduce the rate of the growth of Medicare and she will accept that. She came in because she was representing the AARP, the American Association of Retired People. She is willing to take what they have to have to make sure we balance the budget, but she does not think it is fair that you take $280 billion out of Medicare and say you are not reducing anything. She knows better. I wish I had her picture here because she represents a lot of people across the Nation. Medicare people over 65 want to do their fair share, but what they do not want to do is have the one universal system we have in this country--we did not do medical health care last year--we have a universal system in Medicare, and we should not hurt that system.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 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.)