[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 157 (Wednesday, October 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15023-S15025]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE RECONCILIATION BILL

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, over the past 200 years, almost 2,000 
men and women have stood in this Chamber charged with the task of 
governing the greatest democracy in the world. They were, like us, men 
and women of ideals and principle. This Chamber is also no stranger to 
revolutionary winds and radical ideas.
  Some ideas dissipate quickly; others stand like pillars in our 
Nation's history. One thing has held true over time, most ideals will 
not withstand the rigors of the democratic process if they do not hold 
true to the democratic promise: The promise of opportunity for those 
willing to earn it, the promise of freedom for those willing to protect 
it, and the promise of security for those who play by the rules and 
give their fair share. 

[[Page S 15024]]

  And these ideals, once implemented, must also withstand the test of 
time, which brings us to where we are today: Reexamining institutions 
and programs, cutting or streamlining where possible, eliminating where 
necessary. We have done some important work this year, and I commend 
the party in power for that. But I am deeply troubled by the direction 
of some of these changes and the extremes to which this Congress seems 
to be headed.
  The American people voted for change in 1992 and in 1994. They 
clearly wanted a smaller, more efficient Government. They wanted a 
better use of their tax dollars. But they did not vote for the 
wholesale dismantling of Government. Laws that protect public safety, 
education, and access to basic health care are all critically needed 
and supported by the public we serve.
  Some of the proposals being put forth in this Congress seem less like 
needed reform and more like revolution for revolution's sake. They go 
beyond reason and, I believe, beyond the wishes of the American people.
  If moderation does not prevail, this level of extremism will 
ultimately take our country backward, not forward, and the damage will 
be felt not by us, but by generations to come.
  Examples of the kind of extremism which seems to have gripped some in 
this Congress are littered throughout major bills we have dealt with 
this year, from regulatory reform to appropriations bills, to obscure 
language added to defense authorization bills, and to the upcoming 
reconciliation bill. But some of the most onerous and most blatant 
extremism is reserved for the upcoming Medicaid and Medicare plans. Let 
me give you examples of my concerns.
  Medicaid is the safety net, a true safety net, for 36 million 
Americans. Does Medicaid need to be reformed? Yes, but you do not get 
there by simply cutting off the most vulnerable people from access to 
fundamental health care.
  Six million Americans who are disabled rely on Medicaid for their 
health care. Because they have long-term, complex and expensive health 
conditions, they cannot buy private insurance. Medicaid is often the 
only health insurance available for this population. Yet, both the 
Senate and the House bills could jeopardize coverage for the disabled.
  Nationally, 15 percent of Medicare beneficiaries rely on help from 
Medicaid to cover the required copayments. The Senate bill would allow 
States to remove such coverage, leaving millions of the poorest seniors 
quite possibly unable to pay their share of Medicare costs.
  The House bill would also eliminate guaranteed coverage for children 
whose health insurance is Medicaid. Twenty percent of the Nation's 
children rely on Medicaid for basic health needs--immunizations, 
emergency care, regular checkups. This makes no sense to me, fiscal or 
moral.
  What is revolutionary about regressing on quality and safety 
standards in nursing homes? Twenty years ago, Congress reacted to the 
appalling state of our country's seniors who resided in nursing homes: 
elderly patients strapped to their beds against their will, patients 
being fed dog food and drugs, lice-infested bed sheets. These pictures 
are not even old enough to fade from memory yet.
  I well remember conditions in the early seventies that my sisters and 
I found when we went to look at some 40 San Francisco Bay Area nursing 
homes for my mother who had chronic brain syndrome--a deterioration of 
the brain that covers memory, reason, and judgment.
  I remember the stench of urine, seniors strapped to wheelchairs, poor 
food, and on and on. We were lucky then to find 1 home out of 40 that 
we visited that had a level of care that was appropriate for my mother, 
and she lived there for 7 years.
  The call for national standards then was loud, clear and bipartisan. 
In fact, the standards now in place were supported by both parties and 
signed into law by then-President Ronald Reagan.
  Have we really so soon forgotten these lessons? In our extreme zeal 
to get Government off our backs, are we really willing to subject the 
next generation of seniors to the same degradations all over again?
  Another aspect of the House Republican Medicaid plan that I believe 
goes beyond the bounds of reason is the repeal of protections against 
spousal impoverishment. A woman today who cannot afford the cost of 
nursing home care for her husband with Alzheimer's already must spend 
down her own resources to low levels in order to qualify for Medicaid.
  Current law allows her to retain up to $14,961 in income to remain 
living independently, and prohibits States from imposing liens on homes 
of nursing home residents. The House bill eliminates these protections, 
protections which allow her to keep her car, her home, and enough money 
to pay her heating bills while paying for her husband's nursing home 
care with Medicaid assistance.
  Over 10.5 million Californians, nearly one-third of my State's 
residents, have incomes less than 200 percent of the poverty line. 
These families are one tragedy, one major illness, one job loss away 
from not making it. Removing the only thing that stands between these 
families and bankruptcy is not reform, it is extreme, and it is 
unconscionable.
  The Republican proposal cuts Medicare by $270 billion. That is not 
just extreme, I think it is disingenuous. The $270 billion in cuts is 
not going to the deficit. It is not being used to save Medicare. It is 
going to give tax breaks to the wealthy, and it is going to raise taxes 
for the poor.
  Only $89 billion is needed to make the part A trust fund of Medicare 
solvent. That is what becomes insolvent in the year 2002. But cuts are 
also made in part B, which has nothing to do with the trust fund, and 
the reason for this is, in part, it would seem, to give a capital gains 
tax cut.
  A capital gains tax cut largely benefits people who earn incomes of 
over $100,000 a year, and I can see reasons for a capital gains tax 
cut--but not by cutting Medicare. That is simply not moral.
  The cuts to hospitals in part A will have a devastating impact, 
particularly on public hospitals and teaching hospitals. In my State, 
for example, the University of California maintains five big teaching 
hospitals. According to them last week, under this plan, they would 
face a net loss of $116.4 million over 7 years. Other California 
hospitals, already facing strapped budgets, would lose an additional $7 
billion.
  The Senate Medicare plan also includes arbitrary cuts in provider 
services if spending does not meet targeted levels--indiscriminate cuts 
in home health, hospital care, doctor visits and diagnostic tests.
  Providers have already borne the brunt of congressional budget cuts 
over the last 10 years, and we all know what indiscriminate cuts mean; 
it means fewer doctors serving Medicare patients, and cutbacks in 
services for those who do.
  This is not reform, it is a kind of politics, but these politics will 
hurt America's seniors and America's indigent. We can do better than 
that if moderate heads prevail.
  I am not one that says only $89 billion should be cut. I recognize 
that we have to look at other things to balance the budget. I recognize 
that Medicare and Medicaid are culprits in budget balancing. But let us 
do it in a way that sees the light of day, that has full discussion, 
that takes into consideration many views, not just the views of one 
political party and, in fact, one branch of that political party.
  Some of the extremism that I have seen this past year is not just an 
isolated case. Much of the legislation we have worked on takes this 
country back. Let me just throw out some of the areas: environmental 
protection, safety regulations, abortion rights, education.
  We are not talking about Federal micro-management that can be done 
better by States. We are talking about things like clean air, clean 
water, hazardous waste cleanup, and airline safety.
  For example, provisions in appropriations bills for the EPA and 
proposed budget cuts would hinder the enforcement of safe drinking 
water standards for contaminants like cryptosporidium and arsenic in 
water. Do the American people want this? No. It would prevent EPA from 
testing for groundwater contamination at underground storage tanks. Do 
the American people want this? No. It would reduce hazardous waste 
compliance inspections at Federal facilities, such as Edwards and 

[[Page S 15025]]
Vandenberg Air Force Bases, the Department of Energy's Livermore 
Laboratories, San Diego Naval Station, and Sacramento Army Depot. Do 
Californians want this? No.
  It would further delay the cleanup of 230 Superfund sites across this 
Nation, including a dozen or more in my State. One of them that would 
be delayed is called Iron Mountain Mine, located in Redding. It is 
interesting. It is a mountain that used to be an old copper mine. It 
has holes in it the height of a 30-story office building because the 
mountain was drilled. When it rains, the water mixes with the chemical 
and it produces sulfuric acid, which drains out into the Trinity River 
and metalizes the river bed. There are a couple of ways of controlling 
it, but they are very expensive. It is a big Superfund site. Is it 
important to do it? Of course. This river eventually becomes part of 
the drinking water for two-thirds of the people in the State of 
California.
  But balancing the budget is not all that this agenda is about, 
because at the same time many are proposing cutbacks in funds to 
enforce environmental and safety standards, they want to give away 
billions of dollars in gold and mineral resources owned by American 
taxpayers to mining companies at a fraction of what they are worth. 
They want to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil 
development companies and permit logging on public lands, while waiving 
environmental laws that protect those lands.
  This is not budget cutting; it is ``set-back'' political agenda. 
These proposals place cost above safety in regulatory reform. To me, 
this means many safety standards can be challenged because they do not 
meet the least-cost alternative test, including shoulder belts and rear 
seat belts in cars, airbags in cars, and black boxes on airplanes. It 
means critical delays in safety regulations for things like commuter 
airlines and meat inspections. This is not reform; this is an 
abdication of responsibility.
  This agenda is not about reducing taxes--at least not for everyone. 
While some plan to cut Medicare to give a capital gains tax break, they 
also want to increase taxes for 7.4 million lower income Americans. 
Republican proposals would reduce the earned-income tax credit for low-
income workers and their families, and eliminate it entirely for low-
income workers without children.
  While the Senate proposals would also make cuts in capital gains 
taxes, a House plan would eliminate $3.5 billion in tax credits for 
developers investing in housing for low and moderate-income families.
  Education, without an education and skilled work force this country 
will be nowhere. We cannot compete in a global marketplace. We all 
agree with that, regardless of party. Yet, there are efforts to cut the 
number of students receiving Pell Grants, to eliminate the direct 
student loan program, to tax colleges for every student that receives a 
Federal loan, to eliminate the AmeriCorps Program, which provides money 
for college to more than 4 million youngsters who serve their 
communities over the next 7 years.
  This is not about getting Government off of our backs. We see attacks 
on a woman's right to choose everywhere in these bills--from preventing 
women in the military from using their own funds to pay for an abortion 
at military hospitals overseas, to preventing the District of Columbia 
from using its own locally-raised tax dollars to provide abortions for 
poor women, to denying Federal employees access to abortion services in 
their health benefits--an option available to all nongovernment 
employees--to the most insidious of all: House measures, and an 
expected Senate measure, to make Medicaid funding of abortion optional 
for States even in cases of rape and incest.
  This is not reform, it is a step backward in time to the days we all 
remember well, where desperate women were forced to seek medical 
treatment in back allies. I remember it. I remember college dormitory 
students passing the plate so an 18 year old woman could go to Mexico 
for an abortion. There is no other way of describing this, except 
extremism.
  The irony of the reconciliation bill is that it will contain many of 
these things. And our process, theoretically, is designed on big issues 
to have full discussion and debate. That is what this Senate is 
supposed to be all about. Some of these issues will have little public 
hearing. They will be limited to 20 hours of debate. These extreme 
proposals can set back our Nation, and they most certainly will impact 
the future of tens of millions of Americans.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________