[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 84 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1082-E1083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE COALITION BUDGET

                                 ______


                        HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 18, 1995
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, this is a time of tough, economic choices. 
Congress is faced with a $4.7 trillion debt that is depriving our 
Nation of the investments we need to improve our economic productivity 
and give our children a stable future.
  I have long searched for a solution to the problems facing my 
constituents and the country as a whole. I have listened to the 
concerns of the hard-working people in my district. They understand 
that sacrifices have to be made in order to get our financial debt 
under control. They just want to make sure that it is done in a fair, 
sensible, common-sense way.
  This is why I voted for a budget proposal that is tough on the 
deficit, but makes only the cuts necessary to balance the budget.
  Unfortunately, the Republicans in the House have proposed a budget 
that puts off consideration of cuts until after $350 billion in tax 
cuts are put in place. I want to see those tax cuts become a reality--
but we need to reduce government first. The Senate has put forth a 
budget that reflects this idea. They agree that it is not good fiscal 
policy to start giving out tax credits before the budget is balanced.
  The budget resolution that I support makes many tough choices. It is 
a new, bold solution to really fix what needs fixing--reigning in 
government spending. But it does it much more slowly and deliberately 
than what the Republicans have proposed. It will cut what needs to be 
cut, but it doesn't go too far, too fast. The budget proposal I voted 
for makes conservative, but not unreasonable cuts, in funding for 
programs such as education, health, economic development, and maintains 
the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.
  The Republican budget proposal would cause Cook County to lose $90 
million in mass transit funds, $6.8 billion in Medicare funding, and 
$1.5 million in community development grants. I am for balancing the 
budget. I just do not want to make drastic and unnecessary cuts that 
will hurt my community, especially its elderly.
  The Coalition Budget Substitute that I supported makes smart choices 
about down-sizing the government:
  It slows the growth of Medicare just enough to keep the Trust Fund 
solvent. What we need to do in the next several years is lower the 
projected cost of the Medicare Program, while preserving benefits, 
quality, choice and affordability. We can do this by aggressively 
investigating fraud and abuse, and offer incentives to encourage the 
use of fewer and less expensive services. Medicare growth needs to be 
controlled, but drastically increasing the premiums of Medicare 
recipients is not the answer.
  It turns Medicaid into a block grant and slows the current growth 
rate of the program. The Coalition Substitute cuts less than the 
Republican bill--$50 billion less in cuts--but it will significantly 
reorder Medicaid funding. This program is important to Illinois because 
50 percent of the beneficiaries are disabled individuals who are unable 
to work, and 20 percent are elderly who need assistance with nursing 
home care costs. The Republican budget's cuts would be so severe, that 
long-term care for the more vulnerable elderly and disabled would be 
non-existent. Medicaid needs changing, and the Coalition Budget 
Substitute can accomplish this change without devastating the elderly 
and disabled in Illinois.
  Many health care organizations have come out in support of the 
Coalition Budget Substitute because they know that our health care 
system cannot continue to meet the needs of the American people if the 
broader economy is ill. They support this alternative to the Republican 
budget proposal because it makes hard choices while still preserving 
essential safety net programs in Medicare and Medicaid.
  It incorporates savings from welfare reform that will not give 
benefits to non-citizens. It is time for this country to put the needs 
of its hard-working, law-abiding citizens ahead of those who do not 
contribute to our economy. This bill does gives priority to legal U.S. 
citizens.
  It does not cut guaranteed student loans. The Republican budget 
proposal would start penalizing children while they were still in 
school. We need to continue educating our children, not take away their 
ability to improve themselves and our country.
  It deletes the tax on Federal employees, so people who have 
contributed all their lives to their pension will not be penalized for 
doing so. The Republicans included this increase in Federal employees' 
contributions to pay for tax cuts, but I don't agree with targeting one 
group of retirees for this purpose. It is not fair, and the budget 
proposal I voted for would right this wrong. [[Page E1083]] 
  It cuts $11 billion less than the Republicans' bill for child health 
and immunization, medical research, and other essential health 
programs. It is important that we recognize that medical research and 
immunization is crucial to ward off and cure devastating diseases.
  It makes some cuts, but $6 billion less than the Republicans' bill, 
in economic development programs, such as job training and Community 
Development Block Grants [CDBGs].
  It saves $4.1 billion from farm programs over 7 years.
  If partisan feelings were put aside, I believe that Republicans and 
Democrats could have come together on this common-sense plan to cut 
government spending and reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, the cuts 
proposed by the Coalition budget resolution did not pass the House.
  I suspect that a similar proposal to the one that was voted down 
today will arise from the conference between the Senate and the House. 
Many members of the Senate would rather focus on deficit reduction than 
tax cuts. That just makes sense. Even though this bill was voted down 
today, this is just the beginning of the process. We still have a 
chance to fulfill our commitment to our children by reducing the 
deficit, but continue to keep our contract to our parents.


                          ____________________