[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 158 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15105-S15106]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          OFFSETTING TAX CUTS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to call attention, as other 
colleagues have done today, to the work just accomplished by the Ways 
and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees in the House of 
Representatives. Unfortunately, the legislation these committees 
produced is every bit as disastrous as we anticipated it would be, and 
I am concerned not only about the quality of the bill they passed but 
the process they used to consider this legislation.
  The plan they passed heaps tremendous additional costs on seniors 
across this country. And, in particular, it squeezes dry rural America. 
I have no doubt whatsoever that it will close hospitals and clinics in 
many parts of this country including South Dakota, and I believe that 
it decimates medical research and innovation, all in the name of saving 
the trust fund.
  Yet, as we have attempted to explain over the course of this debate, 
what was done in the Ways and Means and Commerce Committees over the 
last several days has nothing to do with saving the trust fund. The 
actuaries in Health and Human Services have reconfirmed just as late as 
last week that we only need $89 billion to save the trust fund. Yet, 
over half of the savings in the Republican plan comes from part B of 
the Medicare program, which has nothing to do with the trust fund. Of 
the $270 billion reduction in Medicare spending, over half of the 
savings comes from part B.
  The new costs that are going to be imposed on seniors, cuts in 
benefits, increases in premiums, increases in deductibles, have 
absolutely nothing to do with the trust fund. The Republicans decided 
to cut $270 billion from Medicare before they even saw the trustees' 
report. In fact, Republicans actually repealed the law, passed in 1993, 
that dedicated new revenue to help shore up the trust fund.
  That is why actuaries in the Health Care Financing Administration say 
that even with $270 billion in cuts that the Republicans call for, the 
trust fund is solvent only to the year 2006, the same solvency date as 
one gets from cutting $89 billion from Medicare. That is amazing to me. 
Despite the fact that the HCFA actuaries confirm that the $89 billion 
in Medicare cuts that Democrats have advocated in our Medicare 
alternative accomplishes exactly the same thing in terms of trust fund 
solvency as the $270 billion, Republicans are still determined to cut 
huge amounts from Medicare.
  And so, Mr. President, we have a very clear choice--$89 billion in 
Medicare cuts, presented by the Democrats as a way to address Medicare 
solvency with real long-term improvements in the infrastructure of the 
program, following the recommendations of the Health and Human Services 
actuaries, versus $270 billion in cuts, which achieves exactly the same 
level of solvency. This choice certainly raises a question about what 
the additional $181 billion in Medicare cuts contained in the 
Republican plan will truly be used for.
  I think it is as clear as the charts that have been shown on the 
floor this afternoon. We know what the additional $181 billion is going 
to be used for. We know that we have to come up with $245 billion in 
offsets for the Republican tax cut. That is really at the heart of this 
whole debate.
  Republicans are meeting this afternoon here in the Senate to come up 
with a package of tax cuts, largely dedicated to those who do not need 
tax relief, in an effort to complete this reconciliation package.
  We know they need $245 billion to offset this tax cut, and there is 
no secret as to where that money is going to come from. It will come 
from Medicare. It will come from Medicaid. It will come from increases 
in the cost to working families who will lose benefits from the cut in 
the earned-income tax credit. It will come from the education budget, 
and it will come from agriculture. The American people need to 
understand where the money for the Republican tax cut is coming from.
  What is so tragic is that money for the tax cut is coming from people 
who cannot afford to give it in the first place--impoverished families 
who have a spouse in a nursing home who will have to sell their farms, 
sell their homes, sell their businesses in order to ensure that that 
family member can stay in the nursing home where he or she has been 
residing. That is just plain wrong. That kind of transfer is not in our 
best interest and we have got to defeat it when we have the opportunity 
to do so in the weeks ahead.
  The process by which Republicans are trying to pass this bill is as 
problematic as the substance of the legislation. I want to address that 
issue for just a moment. As we have made clear over the last several 
weeks, there have been no hearings, there has been no consultation or 
real effort to reach out to Democrats to try to accommodate our 
concerns, no analysis provided, no explanation of how seniors, 
hospitals, or families are affected, and no legislative language until 
after the committee vote was taken.
  That fact has not been widely reported. There have been votes taken 
in committee, but no legislative language. Generally when we go through 
a markup, we take the bills page by page and attempt, as best we can, 
to modify the legislation through the amendment process in order to 
accommodate the concerns raised by Senators. None of that happened 
because nobody had legislative language or sufficient detail to be able 
to determine how best to amend the bill. In other words, we have had no 
hearings, no analysis, no explanation, and no legislative language 
before a vote was taken on major legislation to radically alter 
important programs upon which seniors and families depend.
  But we do know how some of the decisions about this legislation were 
made. It has been widely reported that the AMA lined up outside the 
Speaker's office just yesterday and made a decision to cut a deal with 
the Speaker, and as a result they walked away with the assurance that 
they would not have to contribute to the Medicare reductions to the 
extent seniors and other providers would have to.
  In other words, doctors now, because they were able to cut their own 
deal with the Speaker, are not going to be required to contribute to 
this process to the degree that it was originally proposed. Yet, we 
also know that the Republicans are holding fast to their determination 
to cut Medicare by $270 billion. So someone else, seniors or other 
providers, will have to be hit even harder to make up the additional 
revenue.
  I thought it was all the more revealing when the board chair of the 
AMA on the 27th of September made reference to these deals and 
indicated--and I quote--``The bright lights of public scrutiny can only 
hurt, not help, delicate discussions.'' The translation is, ``Bright 
lights and public scrutiny are counterproductive to good deals.'' We 
are not going to cut a deal if there is public scrutiny and bright 
lights.
  That is not the way this democracy should work. Backroom deals may 
help doctors, backroom deals may spare them sacrifice; but backroom 
deals away from the light of day can only hurt seniors and cannot do 
anything to give us the opportunity that we should have had in the 
first place through hearings, through a legislative process, through a 
markup with legislative language, to carefully consider important 
legislation.
  Seniors and their families were not invited into the Speaker's 
backroom. Rural hospitals were not invited into the Speaker's backroom. 
We really still do not know what kind of a deal was cut. That is all 
the more reason many of us are very concerned about backroom deals. We 
still, a couple days after the fact, do not know exactly what kind of a 
deal was cut with the physicians.
  We are also very concerned about budget gimmicks like lockboxes that 
supposedly lock in savings from a certain program so they are dedicated 
only for certain purposes. This is a budget gimmick. We all know all 
program cuts and all tax decreases come from the same budget. We know 
in the end they will be able to transfer cuts in benefits to cuts in 
taxes. Medicare savings will still go to tax breaks for those who do 
not need it.
  We also know that the Republican budget expenditure limit target is a 
gimmick that will cut more and more in subsequent years from Medicare, 
and take more and more out of the pockets of seniors.
  Seniors know that this legislation means double deductibles, 
increases in 

[[Page S 15106]]
premiums, increases in the eligibility age for Medicare and the 
elimination of important senior protections that have long been part of 
this program.
  Mr. President, this legislation presents seniors with a series of bad 
choices--and bad choices are no choices at all. And these bad choices 
are created in the name of benefits and tax breaks to those who do not 
need them. We can do better than this. We can do better than backroom 
deals. We need to open up this legislative process, allow the light of 
day to shine on our decisionmaking, allow the details of this bill to 
be examined and carefully considered as it must ultimately be, if this 
legislation is going to become law. We can do better. And I hope we 
begin sooner rather than later.
  I yield the floor and I note the absence of--I withhold for just a 
moment.

                          ____________________