[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15275-S15276]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               PRIORITIES

  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair and the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota for his eloquence and his leadership on this issue. He has 
spoken as passionately as I have seen him speak on an issue he cares 
deeply about, and I am very grateful to him for the many occasions 
where he has come to the floor to speak out as strongly as he has again 
this afternoon.
  Mr. President, this is an unusual week. I hope that everyone can 
fully appreciate the magnitude of what will happen this week. As we 
speak, the Senate Finance Committee is meeting to discuss just how we 
will divide up the $245 billion in tax cuts that we have been talking 
about now for several months.
  They are expected to complete their work tomorrow. Ironically, 
tomorrow is the very day the House of Representatives will take up a 
proposal to cut $270 billion from Medicare in an effort to pay for it.
  So you have the interesting and very ironic juxtaposition of the 
Senate Finance Committee voting to cut $245 billion today and tomorrow, 
and the House voting simultaneously to pay for it by cutting $270 
billion in Medicare and ultimately $187 billion in Medicaid, to ensure 
that we have enough left over.
  We are deeply concerned, Mr. President, on the ramifications that all 
of this has; concern for a lot of reasons. Let me mention just four.
  First, we are deeply concerned, and I could bring back all of the 
rhetoric we heard last year during the health care debate about closed-
door decisionmaking, rhetoric we heard about the concerns raised by 
many that we did not have an opportunity to discuss in open and public 
debate all of the very significant and far-reaching ramifications of 
the decisions being made.
  Lo and behold, over the last several days, that is exactly what has 
happened with regard to this tax package. Decisions were made, deals 
were cut, long-term ramifications considered and explained away without 
one opportunity for Democrats to be consulted or to participate. That 
is wrong. Closed-door decisionmaking, Mr. President, is wrong under any 
circumstances, and it is wrong in this case.
  We just saw evidence in the last couple of weeks about what kind of 
deals can be cut behind closed doors, as doctors went in to speak to 
the Speaker and came out smiling because of the new opportunities they 
have to avoid responsibility in making the cuts on Medicare; avoid 
having to come under the scrutiny of those who would ferret out waste 
and abuse in the Medicare Program.
  The Speaker made an announcement a couple of days later that he will 
go after murderers first and he will talk later about what problems 
there may be with fraud and abuse in the Medicare system, because we 
may not have enough prison cells.
  Mr. President, that is wrong. If that is what results in closed door 
deals, it is doubly wrong.
  We are equally concerned about the budgetary effect. Everybody has 
come to the floor, time and again, to talk about what it is we are 
trying to do with this reconciliation package, what we are trying to 
do, going all the way back to the budget debate last spring and how 
important it was we did everything possible to ensure that we reach 
that 2002 target day.
  What do we find? Republicans have a choice between a tax cut which 
exacerbates the problem by $93 billion according to CBO and not 
achieving all of the goals that we want, or having a tax cut and doing 
all that Republicans have proposed we do with regard to providing this 
largess to those who do not need it.
  What do we find? Almost to a person, our Republican colleagues now 
suggest that it is important to pass this tax cut, regardless of the 
deficit ramifications. The $93 billion somehow is explained away. The 
$93 billion will not be explained away, Mr. President, and we have to 
address that issue before we resolve this reconciliation matter.
  Third, as we have said time and again, it is the distribution of 
benefits that disturbs us a great deal. Providing huge tax cuts to 
millionaires and requiring working families with incomes of less than 
$30,000 to pay more is just wrong. It is wrong, and that distribution 
is something that we will be dealing a lot more with in the coming days 
and weeks.
  How is it we can possibly ask working families to pay more, and 
turning around and giving those who have so much yet another handout in 
the form of tax benefits?
  Perhaps the most troubling of all the aspects, Mr. President, is the 
degree to which Medicare is being cut to accomplish this in the first 
place. A Medicare cut of $270 billion, $187 billion in Medicaid, all in 
this ruse that somehow it is those resources that will be used only for 
deficit reduction, when we know full well that $270 billion is going to 
be used for the tax cut that has nothing to do with taking further out 
whatever solvency we can in the trust fund.
  Bruce Vladeck said in an October 11 letter to Congressman Sam 
Gibbons:

       The cumulative effect of the Medicare Part A HI reductions 
     included in H.R. 2425 for FY 1996-FY 2002, offset by the cost 
     of repealing the OBRA'93 provision, would reduce Part A 
     expenditures by approximately $93.4 billion. Based on 
     estimates from the Health Care Financing Administration's 
     actuaries, the resulting year-by-year ``net'' Medicare Part A 
     savings would extend the life of the HI Trust Fund through 
     the third quarter of calendar year 2006. This estimate is 
     based on the intermediate set of assumptions in the 1995 
     Trustees Report.

  Mr. President, that says it as clearly as anyone can say it. While 
the Republican proposal would cut $270 billion, the effect that it will 
have on the trust fund is the same effect as the Democratic plan which 
cuts at 89.
  I do not think anyone should be misled about the real motivations and 
the real desire on the part of Republicans, understandably, to find a 
way to pay for the tax cut in the first place.
  The real impact to real people is what we ought to be concerned 
about. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota said it so well. 
They are the most vulnerable. They are the people whose faces we must 
remember as we make these very important decisions--disabled people, 
elderly people, children, people who will be left out simply because we 
failed to appreciate the magnitude of the personal impact that these 
decisions will have on them.
  I do not think a soul in the country voted last year to cut Medicaid 
benefits to those who are disabled so we could give a tax cut to those 
who do not need it. That is wrong. That set of priorities must be 
turned around, and over the course of the next several days we will do 
our level best to ensure that people fully appreciate the repercussions 
and ramifications of what some on the other side are prepared to do.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  
[[Page S 15276]]


                      TRIBUTE TO JOE ALLEN AZBELL

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Joe Allen Azbell--author, journalist, and 
adviser to Presidents and Governors--passed away on September 30 after 
a lengthy illness. He was city editor of the Montgomery Advertiser 
newspaper, a columnist for the Montgomery Independent, and the author 
of three books.
  While his formal education ended with the fifth grade, Joe's 
accomplishments are truly historic. He is credited with helping make 
the Montgomery bus boycott possible. Joining the staff of the 
Advertiser in 1947, within 5 years he had become one of the youngest 
city editors in the South. In December 1955, he ran a front-page story 
on the impending bus boycott. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., 
once remarked that the boycott might never have occurred without this 
pivotal article.
  Born during the Great Depression in a small Texas dustbowl town, Joe 
Azbell ran away from home at the age of 12 because his parents did not 
allow him to read books, and his thirst for knowledge could not be 
quenched. He hid in small-town libraries, figuring that the truant 
police would not look for him there. During World War II, he joined the 
Army Air Corps and began his career in journalism.
  Joe served as an advisor to every Alabama Governor going back to 
Gordon Persons. He was especially close to George Wallace, for whom he 
wrote speeches during his presidential campaign. He supposedly came up 
with the political slogan ``Send them a message'' for the campaign. 
John Chancellor of NBC called it the best political slogan of this 
century. He was also an advisor to every American President from Lyndon 
Johnson to George Bush.
  Much of the success Joe Azbell enjoyed over the years was due to his 
colorful personality and gift for getting along with all types of 
people. He had a genuine interest in people and thoroughly enjoyed 
getting to know them and talking to them. Likewise, people responded to 
his charm, humor, and honesty.
  Joe will be sorely missed by those who knew him both personally or 
only through his excellent reporting and commentary. I extend my 
sincerest condolences to his family in the wake of their tremendous 
loss.

                          ____________________