Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton]. (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Coyne], a distinguished

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we have heard lots of predictions today. Just let me remind Members that in August 1993, the now Speaker, Mr. Gingrich, had this to say when we passed the President's economic program. ``I believe this will lead to a recession next year.'' Newt Gingrich, August 1993. What has happened? Employment is up. Unemployment is down. Inflation is low. Growth is strong. Productivity is improving. Factories are operating at high rates. Investment is booming. The Members who bring this bill to us today were dead wrong in August of 1993 in foreseeing the future. And what they bring to us today is deeply flawed. I am sure you will hear how this bill is amazing. Well, I find it amazing also. We hear the new speaker, Speaker Gingrich, talk of renewing American civilization. Members, if this is renewing American civilization and the values impressed in this bill, I get nervous about this country. Because the values in this bill represent not the best of American ideals but some of the worst. It is, indeed, a unique Robinhood bill that takes from the poorest to give primarily tax benefits to the rich. Over half the benefits go to people with incomes over $100,000. We hear a great deal about the children's tax credit. By 2005, that is less than 25 percent of this bill. All the other things for the most affluent in this country explode in cost. And who pays? The poor, children, reduced nutrition programs, women, reduced health programs, poor seniors, low-income housing cut back, low-income fuel assistance cut back, all to pay for this tax cut for the most affluent in our society, at the same time that we are digging the deficit hole deeper. It is true this bill is paid for over a five-year period of time. But by the year 2000, it increases the deficit by $12 billion. It does not reduce it. It increases it in the year 2001, the year 2002. So all the speeches you hear about deficit reduction and this bill, it has nothing to do with deficit reduction. It just simply digs a hole deeper and makes the job more difficult, requiring more draconian cuts, I am sure targeted at the same people who have been targeted already. So, Members, we have a real choice today. To some degree it is about numbers, about a deficit that goes up under this bill, about dollars that flow to the most affluent in our society who profited the most from our economy over the last 20, 25 years. But it is ultimately about values, about how we want to structure government, how we want to pay for it, who we want to reward in our tax system. Clearly, this is a bill that takes from the most vulnerable to help the most affluent. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, 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 problems. The reason we have a Budget Act is to help us think through legislation before we pass it. Yet this is the eighth time this year we have been asked by the new majority to ignore the Budget Act. The tax before us is a good example of the unwise legislation the House has recently been passing. The measure actually makes the long- term deficit worse since the cost of these tax cuts grow far more quickly than the spending cuts. By the year 2000, according to CBO, the deficit under the bill will be $12 billion higher than it would be if we simply did nothing. Further, it contains some serious provisions that were never passed or considered by the appropriate committees. One of these provisions is a dangerous new taxpayer debt buydown plan. This proposal lets taxpayers designate a portion of their tax liability for debt reduction, thereby taking decisions about Federal spending from the people's elected representatives and handing them over to the wealthy. Essentially it says that the fundamental nature of the Federal Government should be changed from a representative democracy, one person one vote, to a plutocracy, one dollar one vote, a million dollars a million votes. Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of any more invidious scheme for us to include in a tax package. The plan has never been reviewed by the Committee on the Budget. Rather, it was just dropped into the bill by rule as a part of the Kasich substitute. Mr. Speaker, may I also remind the House that the Speaker, now Speaker, in August 1993 said that we, if we pass the President's program, we would head into a recession. Mr. Speaker, the facts are in. Employment is up, unemployment is down, inflation is low, growth was at 4 percent in 1994 productivity is improving, factories are operating at high rates, investment is booming. Mr. Speaker, you were wrong 2 years ago. This is a bad bill.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. So we do not know yet what the exact form of the legislation of the final week before the recess will be, whether it is one bill or several bills?

Mr. SABO. If the minority leader will yield further, I would only indicate to the House that in recent years the House has completed its action on budget resolutions well in advance of April 15.

Mr. SABO. I am curious as it relates to the tax bill, what other bills will be combined with that? I am thinking particularly of the bill we voted out of the Committee on the Budget and other bills that have come out of Energy and Commerce and other committees, the additional changes in Medicare out of Ways and Means. Are those all going to be combined in one bill?

Mr. SABO

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would join in asking the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] to withdraw the amendment and let the committee work on it. I do not know what its impact on senior housing is, plus in our community we have a very unique project with Indian preference, and I think this amendment would override what has been very difficult negotiations.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, 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. This proposal is too serious, its budgetary implications too important, and its long-term consequences too critical to be treated so cavalierly. Mr. Speaker, if this bill were taken up under normal procedures, the Rules Committee would have to either waive all the Budget Act points of order or allow them to be raised on the floor. Under the unusual procedure being used for this bill, the Rules Committee was able to avoid the Budget Act without granting any explicit waivers. The Budget Act rules serve an important purpose. We should not be evading those rules on such an important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, the reason we have a Budget Act is to help us think through legislation before we pass it. Yet, this is the sixth time this year we have been asked by the new majority to ignore that act. The version of the welfare bill made in order by this rule contains several violations of the Congressional Budget Act. Among other things, H.R. 1214 makes a direct appropriation for the new Food Stamp Program in fiscal year 1996. This appropriation breaches the Agriculture Committee's spending allocation and thereby violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act. In addition, the bill provides both budget authority and entitlement authority effective in fiscal year 1996. As a result, it violates section 303(a) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills providing new spending in years for which a budget resolution has not yet been adopted. Further, the bill sets up a new lending program--the so-called rainy days fund. This new program violates section 402(a) of the Budget Act, which prohibits creation of new Federal lending programs that are not controlled through the appropriations process. These and other problems with this bill are symptoms of the haste in which it was assembled and considered. Issues as important as welfare reform deserve far greater care and deliberation. If this bill were taken up under normal procedures, the Rules Committee would have to either waive all the Budget Act points of order or allow them to be raised on the floor. Under the unusual procedures being used for this bill, the Rules Committee was able to avoid the Budget Act without granting any explicit waivers. The Budget Act's rules serve an important purpose. We should not be evading these rules on such an important piece of legislation.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the American people and give some insight into the fiscal priorities of the new Congressional leadership. This rescissions bill seeks to slash nearly one of every six dollars set aside for the disadvantaged in our country in fiscal year 1995. That represents a dramatic $17 billion, or 15.7% reduction in funding for federal domestic programs. In contrast, only 1.2% of the funding for the rest of the discretionary budget, including defense, is targeted for reductions. Today the new Congressional leadership sends a clear message: when it comes to making sacrifices in the federal budget, it's children, women, and senior citizens first. The Republicans terminate the summer youth program starting in 1995, and reduce $1.7 billion in funding for education programs including School-to-Work activities. Such ill-advised policy will produce modest reductions in expenditures in the short-term, but yield substantial long-term losses in the productivity and earning power of today's youth. I question the wisdom of striking directly at the programs which enable motivated young people to improve their own lives. Additionally, these rescissions terminate a program which teaches children about substance abuse and violence prevention, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. While this rescission will do little to cut the deficit, it does effectively cut through Republican rhetoric. The leadership cannot convincingly claim to be tough on drugs and crime while simultaneously taking away an effective tool in combatting children's drug use. Low-income families, including over one million senior citizens who currently live in federally assisted housing, will bear 40% of the cuts outlined in this package. If these $7.3 billion in housing rescissions are enacted, safe, decent housing for recipient families will be jeopardized, and the infrastructure of this multi-billion dollar public investment will be badly damaged. The new Republican leadership recommends the termination of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP). Last year, this program helped approximately 6.1 million low-income households pay their heating bills, and half of those homes sheltered elderly or disabled individuals. LIHEAP recipients have an average annual income of only $8,257 and spend approximately 18.4% of that on energy expenses. They will not easily recover from this loss. These families already face significant hardships, and many will be forced to choose between groceries and heat. Finally, the Republican plan targets mass transit. In urban areas like Minneapolis, this is the only program that provides affordable transportation to low-income families. A $17.5 million reduction in funding for public buses and bus facilities will severely impact many areas in this country where buses are the only mass transit option available. The efficient and effective bus transportation system in my Congressional District has been a key element in the development of the Twin Cities. This cut will depress both urban and rural development while simultaneously reducing the limited transportation options of low-income Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1158, and reject a callous attempt to place the burden of reducing the deficit directly on the backs of children, women, and the elderly.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the welfare provisions contained in the Contract With America, and to express the fears my constituents have communicated to me about cuts to nutrition assistance programs. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Clayton for organizing this debate. The Contract With America would transfer control over Federal programs which provide a safety net to poor children to the States, while at the same time transferring only a portion of the money needed to provide these vital services. Many programs would suffer under this proposal, including those which provide protective services to abused children, those which provide child care assistance to the working poor, and those which provide nutrition assistance to the undernourished. Approximately 13 percent of the children in Minnesota live below the poverty line, and it is estimated that 160,000 children go hungry as a result. Children who do not receive nutritious meals suffer from poor health and diminished performance in school. I have fought to support successful programs like the National School Lunch Program and the Supplemental Food Program for Women Infants and Children [WIC] which were created to combat childhood hunger and give young people the opportunity to succeed. One woman living in Minneapolis recently wrote me that the National School Lunch Program has served as a last line of defense for her family against hunger. Since her husband left, she has had difficulty making ends meet. Nevertheless, she can be confident that her two young daughters will receive at least one carton of milk and one nutritious meal a day when we cannot afford to purchase these items. This family's experience demonstrates the need for a reliable safety net. Nutrition assistance programs like these have represented our nation's acceptance of the basic responsibility we have to care for our children. The welfare provisions contained in the Contract With America represent a fundamental shift in our Nation's policy toward young people. The contract asserts that we, as a nation, should abdicate responsibility for providing basic protective services, basic support services, and basic nutrition to children in need. Those who support the contract would have us believe these proposals were crafted in the name of reducing bureaucracy. I am not deceived by such rhetoric. One Federal bureaucracy would be replaced by 50 State bureaucracies. The only thing that would really be reduced is a child's access to a healthy meal. My home State, Minnesota, is expected to lose $18 million in Federal nutrition funding under the welfare provisions included in the Contract With America. This is a daunting sum of money for a State which already faces a hunger problem. Currently, 1 in every 16 Minnesotans seeks help from food shelves, receiving an annual total of 4 million pounds of food. For example, Minnesota FoodShare, an organization which provides food to needy families throughout the State, would have to dramatically increase their efforts. They would have to generate 17.6 million more pounds of food, or six times the amount of current contributions, to compensate for these lost Federal funds. Clearly, Minnesotans would suffer if these welfare provisions are adopted. True welfare reform does not destroy a child's safety net. Rather, it makes it possible for families to become self-sufficient. Full-time workers should be able to provide food, shelter, and the basic necessities for their families without being forced to turn to the Federal Government. I have proposed raising the minimum wage by 50 percent to $6.50 an hour. Individuals can only move away from public assistance programs once they are empowered to help themselves. I believe increasing the minimum wage is a key element of any welfare reform. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the welfare provisions contained in the Contract With America.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule because of the long list of Budget Act waivers it contains. These Budget Act waivers are needed because H.R. 925 creates a massive new entitlement program. Under the bill, property owners who successfully claim that the value of their property has been diminished by a government regulatory action would be entitled to compensation. The new right to payments would be enforceable through binding arbitration or in court. Payments would be required even for regulatory actions that the government is absolutely required to take under other existing laws. The cost of this new entitlement program is difficult--if not impossible--to calculate with precision, but the cost could be extremely large. Under the bill, landowners would have an incentive to apply for all sorts of Federal to take. If any of the permits were denied, the landowner would be entitled to a check. Compensation would be due even when the Government was simply denying permission for an activity that the landowner knew would not be allowed when he acquired the land. The Office of Management and Budget states that ``preliminary estimates indicate that the effect of the bill would be to increase the deficit by at least several billion dollars during fiscal year 1995 through 1998.'' The Congressional Budget Office cost estimate says that CBO has not yet completed its analysis of the costs of this legislation, but that those costs could be significant. The report of the Rules Committee acknowledges that H.R. 925 creates a new entitlement, and that this entitlement requires numerous Budget Act waivers. In fact, the rule is waiving almost every major provision of the Congressional Budget Act. It waives section 302(f)--the point of order against bills that breach the allocations of spending authority to committees. It waives section 311(a)--the point of order against bills that breach the ceiling on total spending set by the budget resolution. It waives section 308--the rule that requires committee reports on new entitlement bills to disclose and justify the new entitlement. And finally it waives section 401(b)--the point of order against new entitlements effective before the start of the new fiscal year. This rule marks at least the fifth time this year that our Republican colleagues have asked us to waive or circumvent the Budget Act. Ironically, many of the same Republicans who denounced Budget Act waivers in previous Congresses are now supporting waivers in this Congress. We should not be repeatedly waiving our basic budget controls--and especially not for bills like H.R. 925 that have the potential to be huge budget busters. I therefore urge defeat of this rule.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for yielding time to me. I rise in support of the Obey amendment. This bill clearly increases the deficit over the next year and over 5 years. Clearly, the House has spoken and said that emergency supplementals should be a thing of the past. Personally, I do not agree with that judgment. I think the Federal Government should be able to respond to emergencies, both international and domestically, at times of great need. However, the House overwhelmingly said ``no'' when we passed the balanced budget amendment. We said that the Congress would need to live within certain limits regardless of what happened internally or externally and that we had to pay for everything we did within the confines of that amendment. The Obey amendment clearly is consistent with the balanced budget amendment that we passed. It is also consistent with the line-item veto bill that we passed, where the Congress decided it would provide substantial, new, enhanced powers to the executive in making decisions over our appropriating process. The Obey amendment lets the Department make its judgments on programs that they deem to be of lower importance and of lower priority to pay for the bill. It is an amendment that is thoroughly consistent with what the House has done in recent weeks, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. SABO. I am surprised.

Mr. SABO. So, the first spending bill which this new Congress is considering will exceed the discretionary spending caps in the budget resolution of 1995?