[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15270-S15271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         MEDICARE AND TAX CUTS

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have heard a generous bit of discussion 
the last couple of days on the floor of the Senate about Medicare by 
people on the other side of the aisle. I must say the consistency with 
which the assertions are made on the floor of the Senate about Medicare 
reminds me of the consistency yesterday by the folks who came into this 
Chamber and cast votes on term limits. It was very interesting to see 
people who have served here 30 years cast their votes calling for term 
limits; people here 20 years say, ``Well, we are in favor of term 
limits.'' I saw one fellow who has been here 12 years vote for term 
limits and walk out of the Chamber. And, of course, I know he just 
filed for reelection for the next term.
  This is the group that says, ``Stop me before I run again.'' It is 
the same consistency of thought that allows them to make these kind of 
representations on Medicare and taxes and their budget, or lack of 
consistency, I might say.
  They say, ``We are not cutting Medicare.'' What are people saying? 
Why would they say we are cutting Medicare? The fact is, we know what 
it is going to cost to provide a Medicare Program for the next 7 years. 
Those costs are estimated.
  The majority party is saying we want to provide $270 billion less 
than it is going to cost. That is a cut. The senior citizens are going 
to pay more and get less. That is a cut. Oh, you can proclaim all you 
want that it is not a cut. But the folks who pay more for less health 
care is going to know it is a cut.
  I thought, rather than have a Democrat who will be viewed as someone 
cowered by partisanship making the point, I would have a Republican 
make the point so that we are not going to argue about whether or not 
this is a cut or whether it is fair. Let me have Kevin Phillips, a 
Republican political analyst, make the point. He made this not too long 
ago, about a week or 2 ago on public radio.
  He said:

        Remember, at the same time as the Republicans proposed to 
     reduce Medicare spending by $270 billion over 7 years, they 
     want to cut taxes for corporations, investors and affluent 
     families by $245 billion over the same period. This is no 
     coincidence.

  That is a Republican who says that.
  Kevin Phillips, a Republican analyst, responds to these folks who 
have treated us to 2 hours now in 2 days of protest that they are not 
doing what they are really doing, says:

       Today's Republicans see Federal Medicare outlays to old 
     people as a treasure chest of gold for partial redirection in 
     their favorite directions; towards tax cuts for deserving 
     corporations, families, and individuals.

  Kevin Phillips, a Republican, says:

       The revolutionary ideology driving the new Republican 
     Medicare proposal is also simple. Cut middle-class programs 
     as much as possible and give the money back to the private 
     sector business, finance and high-income taxpayers.

  Finally, not a Democrat, Kevin Phillips, a Republican, responds to 
the 2 hours in 2 days of protests from people who say they are not 
doing what they are doing, says:

       Let's be blunt. If the Republican Medicare reform proposal 
     was a movie, its most appropriate title would be ``Health 
     Fraud II.''

  This debate is about choices, and do not lament the fact that we do 
not agree. The debate is healthy. It is what the democratic system is 
about--different ideas, and seeking from those different sets of ideas 
the best of those ideas, but which have the worst of the priorities in 
this Chamber these days. Those priorities say let us kick 55,000 kids 
off the Head Start Program, and every single one of those kids has a 
name and some place in their chest they are hoping they get a start, 
hoping they get a decent chance. But there is not enough money for 
55,000 Head Start kids. There is not enough money to send kids to 
college, which is going to make it tough for families to send their 
kids to college because we do not have enough money. There is just not 
enough money for education and not enough money for health care. We 
cannot afford health care for the sick and the old. So we have to make 
some adjustments there.
  But there is enough money for--what? B-2 bombers, nobody ordered, 20 
of them, $30 billion. Nobody wanted them. Nobody ordered them. The 
Defense Department did not ask for them. But they say we want to buy 20 
anyway.
  There is enough for a star wars program that nobody asked for. Enough 
for F-16's nobody ordered; F-15's nobody asked for; two amphibious 
ships for $2 billion this country does not need; and, yes, even $60 
million for blimps that was written into the Defense budget. Who wrote 
it in? I could not find out. There were no hearings, no thought, and no 
discussion. Just buy some blimps. We cannot afford Head Start for kids. 
But we can buy blimps, the Hindenburg strategy of American defense, I 
guess.
  New ideas? No, no. Herbert Hoover with the shoeshine and a haircut; 
nothing new about this. This is not a new set of ideas, or a new 
direction, or a new policy. It is, let us decide that the rich have too 
little and the poor have too much.
  Kevin Phillips, a Republican, says this: Cut middle-class programs as 
much as possible and give the money back to private sector business, 
finance, and high-income taxpayers. There is nothing new about that. 
But it is not the right priority for this country. We ought to tighten 
our belt, and we ought to do it soon.
  All of us believe that we ought to balance the budget, and we ought 
to do it the right way. All of us believe that you ought to invest for 
the future in this country. All of us believe the right investment will 
produce results for America. 

[[Page S 15271]]

  I do not believe any of us really think that this set of priorities 
makes sense for this country's future--B-2 bombers, star wars, blimps, 
ships, submarines, and airplanes that nobody ordered, nobody asked for, 
and nobody wanted; $7 billion more pumped into the Defense 
appropriations bill that nobody asked for. And then we say we are 
sorry, Timmy, or Tommy or Ruth or Mary; you are 4 years old and poor 
and want a head start, you want an opportunity. We are sorry; America 
cannot afford you.

  I wish to make one final point, and then I wish to yield to my friend 
from New Mexico. I was at an airport on Saturday, and a woman asked if 
she could visit with me as I walked through the airport. I said sure. 
She was a woman in her late seventies, and she began very quietly 
because she did not want anybody to hear. And as she began to speak, 
her chin began to quiver and she, I could tell, was going to have 
trouble holding back tears. And tears filled her eyes, and here is what 
she said to me. She said: My husband's in a nursing home, been there 3 
years. We have a very small farm. I have now sold most of it to pay for 
his nursing home care. She said the problem is, I do not have any more 
money except we have got the home place, the house, and I wish to stay 
in my house. I do not want to have to sell my house. Her eyes were 
filled with tears. She says: I am not asking for favors. We have never 
asked anybody for anything. We have never been on the end of a handout. 
We have always made our own way. But this woman, in her late seventies, 
with tears in her eyes and her chin quivering, says: All I wish to do 
is be able to live in my house.
  The fact is all of these people are victims of policies that say we 
ought to buy B-2 bombers and star wars instead of helping a 78-year-old 
woman stay in her home, instead of deciding we should not drive that 
woman into the poorhouse so that her husband can stay in a nursing 
home. All of these people, that woman, a young 4-year old kid, all of 
them have names. Senior citizens, Head Start kids, family farmers who 
are going to lose the farm, all of them have names. Those are the 
victims of bad choices in budget priorities. It is why, as we debate 
this, we have to think through what is good for our country, what 
advances America's economic interests. Is it just making sure those who 
have a lot get more? Or is it deciding, yes, the investors are 
important; yes, people who have done well and are successful are 
important to this country.
  There is nothing wrong with that, no dispute about that. But there 
are others with needs in America that are important as well. Addressing 
those needs sometimes represents an enormous investment. It breeds 
enormous returns for our future. That is what this debate is about. And 
the outcome of this debate will determine what life is going to be like 
for that older woman, who cries because she wants to keep her home, or 
for some young child who deserves a start in the Head Start Program.
  Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. 
Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from New Mexico.

                          ____________________