[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 163 (Friday, October 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15411-S15414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         BUDGET RECONCILIATION

  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. It is unusual for Senators to 
take to the floor on a Friday afternoon long after the Senate has 
concluded most of its business when there are no votes.
  Today is an unusual day for members of the Budget Committee. We have 
heard from the Senator from North Dakota who has worked so long and 
hard to present a truly balanced budget--not only to the committee but 
to the Senate and to the American people. It was my privilege to 
support him.
  He showed, as did Senator Bradley from New Jersey, that it is, in 
fact, possible to balance the budget in America over 7 years, do it 
truthfully, not relying on Social Security surplus, and do it with a 
heart and with compassion, with common sense, with caring, with pride, 
that really reflects the values of America.
  What are those values? You reward hard work, as in the earned-income 
tax credit. You make sure that your children have a chance to get the 
proper immunizations as in Medicaid. We make sure that when our kids 
are students they could get college loans. We make sure that if our 
people run into trouble and they have to collect child support, that 
the Government does not penalize them for it.
  We make sure that large corporations pay a tax, as in the alternative 
minimum tax, which is repealed by the Republicans. We make sure large 
corporations are good citizens and do not raid pension funds. 
Republicans do that, too.
  And we make sure that when our people reach the age of 65, they can 
count on Medicare. If they are having to go into a nursing home, that 
there are decent standards for those nursing homes, which are repealed 
by the Republicans. I will talk more about that.
  Today, the Democrats and the Republicans came around a long table in 
the Budget Committee. When we walked in, we saw a bill that was so 
tall--of course, I am not very tall, that is true--but this bill was so 
tall that I could barely see my next door neighbor on the committee, 
Senator Murray. I kind of used it as a chin rest.
  That is the size of this Republican revolution. That is the number of 
things they are doing in this budget reconciliation bill. That is why 
we Democrats felt it was important to hear from some of the people who 
represent those in America, our great country, who will be impacted by 
this 1992 revolution, if you will.
  So our ranking member, Senator Exon, a Senator who has served here 
with great distinction--and I might add, is in his senior years--asked 
in a very nice way if, in fact, four people could be heard before we 
start to vote on this package.
  Who are those four people? One was an honor student who happens to be 
in a wheelchair, a quadriplegic, who counts on Medicaid for his very 
breath. We found out that in the Republican plan--and I ask my friend 
to correct me if I am incorrect in this--the Medicaid cuts are so deep 
that no longer will people like that who are trying so hard to build 
the American dream--an honor student--will not be able to count on 
their oxygen supply.
  I found that out today. I did not know it when I walked into the 
room. 

[[Page S15412]]
 We needed more time. I told my friend in North Dakota, and I am sure 
he would help me, along with my friend from Washington State, that we 
ought to have an amendment, take away 5 cents a year from the people 
over $350,000, from the tax break they are getting, and pay for oxygen 
for people like this.
  Who else wanted to speak? Two elderly women who live on Medicare. By 
the way, in my home State of California, the average woman of 65 earns 
$8,500 a year. In California, that is brutally hard. She already spends 
a third of her income on health care. Think about that. Do the math on 
that.
  How could she possibly be asked to spend another $1,000 to $2,000 a 
year? That is what the Republican plan calls for. We in the Budget 
Committee, Democrats, wanted to hear from a person who could give us 
the truth.
  Then there was a woman who had served 20 years in the military. Her 
child is very ill. On a military salary she needs to count on Medicaid 
for her child. We wanted her to be here. Well, no. It was interesting, 
because it was the first time in my life--I have been in the Congress 
for 13 years--that a chairman of a committee adjourned us without 
allowing us to vote on whether to hear these people. He ruled that they 
had no right to be heard, and when we appealed the ruling of the Chair 
he refused to honor that and gavelled us down. He said he was very 
disappointed we did not just vote on that budget.
  Well I am glad we have the weekend for Americans to look at what is 
in it.
  I am going to go to a couple of charts to give the big picture on 
this. This is the basic bill that already passed the House of 
Representatives, a $58 billion increase in the military. We are talking 
here between 1996 and 2002, 7 years--that is $30 billion more than the 
Pentagon asked for.
  All the admirals and generals said ``Yes, we need some more,'' but 
Republicans gave them $58 billion. The nondefense money that we spend 
on education and transportation, environmental protection, food safety, 
highways, airport safety, those kind of things, on a cut of $499 
billion, how is that for symmetry?

  Now we move to what we call entitlements, things we do to help people 
because this is America and we want everyone to get a chance. So, $270 
billion cut in Medicare, $182 billion cut in Medicaid, $13 billion cut 
in ag, $10 billion cut in student loans, welfare, earned income tax 
credits. Food stamps, that is another $100 billion. That is the budget 
that they are so proud of.
  Now, what happened was that Newt Gingrich promised the crown jewel of 
the Republican contract would be a tax break for the wealthiest people 
in America. And he had to figure out a way to get the money for it, 
because it was going to cost a lot of money. He wanted the people over 
$350,000 to get back about $20,000 a year. By the way, he settled for 
about $5,500 a year.
  Let me repeat that. Newt Gingrich wanted the people who earn over 
$350,000 a year to get back $20,000 a year, and he had to find the 
money. So he thought, how can I find the money? Aha, where is there 
money? Medicare and Medicaid. So let us try and scare the people into 
thinking we have to cut that much out of it, and then we will turn 
around and just give all that money to the wealthiest among us.
  What I have here is the trustees' reports on the Medicare trust fund, 
going back to 1970. I want to point out that, from 1970 to the present, 
it was only twice that the trustees reported we did not have to do 
something to save Medicare. In other words, this is a routine thing 
that happens with the trust fund. But people do not know this. So the 
Republicans said, ``Let's make a big hoopla out of this year's 
trustees' report.''
  So, clearly, we know we have to act to save Medicare. We know how 
much we have to cut. In order to save Medicare we need to cut $89 
billion. We need to cut $89 billion out of Medicare. And, by the way, 
it is not that easy to do it, but we can find the savings. We can make 
the adjustments. My goodness, there is enough fraud there we can go 
after, so we think we can do that without pain. So, remember that 
number, $89 billion is what we need to save Medicare.
  But, remember what I told you, they need a lot of money for a tax 
cut. So they decided to cut $270 billion from Medicare. Keep it in 
mind. We needed $89 billion; they are cutting $270 billion. And why? 
Not because the trustees' report says to do that. We know the trustees' 
report indicates where we need to cut $89 billion. Here is why, the 
next chart will show it.
  They need $245 billion for their tax cut. For their tax cut. But, 
guess what, in their zeal they made a big mistake, as the Senator from 
North Dakota has said. They did not really do their homework, because 
in the end they are producing a tax increase for 51 percent of the 
people, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal 
is, in fact, a party that is not known to stand up and fight for 
Democrats. On the contrary. And the Wall Street Journal says those 
earning $30,000 and below, in our country, will see a tax increase as a 
result of Newt Gingrich's revolution. And who will benefit the most? 
The people who earn over $350,000 a year. And let me tell you, they are 
chilling the champagne bottles tonight in those board rooms and those 
penthouses.
  Now, we set them back a little because we stopped it in the Budget 
Committee. We said the American people have to see the truth. We took 
the light and we shined it on this budget, and we are telling the 
American people, in dollars and cents, what it means.
  I want to show you a chart that reflects what has happened in America 
with our tax policy since the 1940's. It is very interesting. I got 
this chart out of a story in the New Yorker that basically asked the 
question, ``What has happened to the middle class?'' The middle class 
is going away.
  It is fascinating to see this chart. From 1947 to 1973, taxpayers in 
every single quintile--and each quintile represents an income bracket. 
So from the very lowest income bracket, No. 1, to the highest, No. 5, 
every one went up at about the same rate, from 1947 to 1973. What does 
that mean? We all prospered together. We all are in this together and 
we all did well together.
  I always thought there was an agreement among Republicans and 
Democrats that that was best for our country. Yes, when the poor do 
well and the middle class do well and the wealthy do well, we are all 
benefiting from this great Nation. That is the way it should be.
  Look what happened, starting in 1973, to 1993. We turned this picket 
fence into a staircase. But look at it. It is Robin Hood in reverse. 
The ones who were doing the worst are poorest, the first two quintiles. 
And by far, this little cat--some might say fat cat--sitting on the 
last quintile, that is the one that goes up to millions and billions, 
that did by far the best.
  What America is better for our people? One in which we all prosper, 
or one in which only the very wealthy prosper? That is the question I 
want the American people and the people of California to ponder over 
this weekend. Since we were able to get a little bit of time, we are 
taking the floor of the U.S. Senate to bring these issues home.
  Let me tell you, buried in this budget are some awful things for 
folks. I have heard from hospitals in my State of California who are 
desperate, desperate about the cuts that will come to them, from 
seniors who are frightened about the cuts that will come to them, from 
people who have moms and dads in nursing homes who are frightened to 
death what will happen to their parents.
  By the way, we call them the sandwich generation. They are caught in 
the middle. Their teenage kids have to go to college. How can they 
experience a day in peace, worrying about their kids on the one hand 
and all the challenges we have, economic and otherwise, raising our 
kids, and our parents on the other.
  I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator is granted 2 additional minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Madam President.
  So, this budget is a slam at American values. It is a slam at family 
values. It repeals nursing home standards. Why do we have them? Because 
we learned in the 1980's what happens to old people who are helpless. 
And we needed to put national standards in place so they would not get 
bed sores, so they would 

[[Page S15413]]
not be scalded, so they would not be abused physically, sexually, so 
they could have a little dignity in a very difficult time, after they 
raised their kids.
  Family values? This is the opposite of family values. This is turning 
our backs on our people whom we are here to fight for. Nursing 
homeowners? Or the people? I do not know what is popular today or what 
is unpopular. But I know where I stand. I stand with my colleague for 
the people, for the people of my State and the people of my Nation. I 
am a first-generation American. I was taught by my parents hard work, 
play by the rules, stand up and fight for what you believe in, honor 
the children, honor the elderly, and have love in your heart for those 
who may not be as fortunate as you.
  So this budget debate is very important. And when the budget chairman 
slammed down that gavel and said ``adjourned, we are not listening 
anymore, we do not want to hear it, we do not want to hear it,'' it 
sent a chill up and down my spine. But I believe that my Democratic 
colleagues on that committee are more resolved than ever to show that 
we can balance the budget and do it in a smart way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, might I have 30 seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Thank you, Madam President.
  I just want to thank my colleague from California. I hope the people 
from California know what a fighter they have in the Senator from 
California, Senator Boxer. I am so proud to be a member of the Budget 
Committee with her because over and over during these discussions and 
debates, she has stood up and fought for the middle class and the 
working families, and said, ``Now, wait a minute. Let us understand 
what the implications are of these policies that are being pursued. Who 
wins? Who loses? Who is helped? Who is hurt?''
  I just want to say once again that I appreciate the strong stance she 
has taken to say we ought to have a policy that is fair. That is an 
American standard; that is an American value; that we stand up and 
fight for something that is fair in this country, that asks everybody 
to contribute in this budget battle, not just to say to the working 
class and middle-income people get in the front lines of this budget 
battle, but to say to those who are the wealthiest among us as well 
that you ought to participate, too. That is the American way.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Madam President. I ask unanimous consent to 
speak in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you.
  Madam President, I am here today to join my colleague from North 
Dakota and my colleague from California to express my surprise and 
outrage at the actions of the Budget Committee today. To have citizens 
of this country come before us to tell us their personal stories about 
how this budget would impact their lives, their very fragile lives, and 
not allow them the opportunity to speak for 5 minutes each to me was 
very un-American and a very sad moment in this Senate's history.
  These people represent literally thousands of people across this 
country who are as concerned as we are about the real life impacts of 
this budget. We did not hear from the senior citizen. We did not hear 
from a young man in a wheelchair who uses Medicaid dollars to continue 
breathing. We did not hear from a young man who is trying to get his 
education who is fearful that his student loan is going to go away and 
he will not be given that American dream, that American opportunity to 
finish his college education. We, in fact, have not heard from that 
welfare mother, that single mother who is off welfare with two little 
children in this country. She does not have the time to fly out here. 
She does not have the ability to pay. We have not heard from them. And 
this budget is going to impact them throughout America.
  Madam President, I ran for the Senate in 1992. I moved from my home 
State 3,000 miles away and brought my family with me to do this 
terrifically difficult job because I sat at home one day not that long 
ago, 3 years ago, and I looked across this country, and I said, ``Is 
anybody on that floor addressing the real issues that affect people 
like me?'' I am that sandwich generation. I have two kids at home. I 
have two parents who are seriously ill who rely on Medicare to continue 
living. And I know what it is like to worry about whether or not my 
kids will have the ability to go to college because of money. I know 
what it is like to get that phone call from a parent who says, ``I do 
not have enough money to go to the doctor.'' I know what it is like for 
my husband and I to both work every single day to pay our mortgage, to 
put food on the table, and who do not have time, like thousands of 
American citizens, to know what is in this budget.
  Yet, we are to know what is in that budget when it came before us 
before the Budget Committee in a stack this high, and we were told we 
had to vote on it in that minute. This budget will impact the lives of 
every single American working family in a dramatic and difficult way. 
It will mean that our kids will not have preschool education and Head 
Start. It will mean that there will be kids without immunization. It 
will mean kids who cannot go to college. It will mean Medicaid 
recipients--one out of five children in my State--who will not have 
health care coverage. It means senior citizens who will not have health 
care in this country anymore. And it means that those of us who will 
have to make a difficult decision about whether or not our parents need 
to go into a nursing home will not be able to know what the standard of 
care is there for them when they need it.
  This budget is what I came back here to fight for. As a U.S. Senator, 
we deserve the time, both as citizens in this country who come here to 
testify and as citizens on the floor of this Senate and as U.S. 
Senators, to have the opportunity to tell the American people what is 
in this budget.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield? I just want to say to the Senator 
before I leave the floor how much I appreciate her contribution to this 
U.S. Senate. She ran as a mom in tennis shoes. She stayed true to the 
reason she came to this Senate. The fact that she was sitting on the 
committee that will make these decisions is a great tribute to this 
Nation. And she and I know if we were not here tonight, if we were not 
speaking out against this budget, we would not be true to ourselves. I 
just want to thank her for adding a voice in this debate.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from California.
  I just want to point out, because I think this is the family who has 
been forgotten--we talked about them in the welfare debate. We said 
their mother has to go to work in this country. We passed that bill out 
of the Senate. It is passed out of the House. This is the single mother 
with two children who earns $12,000 a year. This is how this budget 
will impact this mother. She is going to lose her earned income tax 
credit. She is going to lose $373 a year under this budget. This mother 
is going to lose $300 a year on food stamps. This mother is going to 
lose $2,400 a year that pays for Medicaid and health care coverage for 
her children. And she is going to have to pay $480 to her State in 
order to collect child support from her missing husband.
  This budget will cost this single mother with two young children 
$3,553. As my colleagues have pointed out, she is going to lose. And 
who is going to win? The richest 1 percent of Americans will get a tax 
break every single year.
  I ask my colleagues. Who do we value in this country? Do we value a 
young mother who is working and trying to raise her kids? Are we going 
to ignore her in this budget process? I think it is critical that we 
take the time to evaluate it, and it is critical that we listen to the 
people across this country about the priorities that we are going to 
set in the future.
  I join my colleagues on the Budget Committee in expressing our 
outrage at what is occurring. I thank my colleague.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I would like to thank my colleague from 

[[Page S15414]]
  Washington for the great work she has done on the Budget Committee.
  At its root, at its bottom, a budget is the priorities of America. 
This represents the choices we make about the priorities for the money 
that we are going to spend over the next 7 years.
  These are critically important choices, and the Senator from 
Washington has been loud and clear with respect to what those 
priorities ought to be--priorities that favor the middle class and 
working families in this country who are struggling to get by, saying 
to the students who want to further their education there ought to be 
an opportunity for a student loan. We should not, as the Republican 
plan calls for, increase the cost of that student loan $3,100 over the 
next 7 years.
  It says to that struggling senior, yes, there have to be savings out 
of Medicare; we understand that, but not these kinds of draconian cuts 
that mean a further burden on seniors and that will threaten the 
closing of hospitals throughout the rural parts of America.
  To say to others who count on Federal programs in order to survive, 
as that young man who was in the wheelchair this afternoon who relies 
on Medicaid for his very breath, that is an American priority, that is 
someone we care about in the American family.
  Senator Murray has been right there making these points and carrying 
this fight. I thank her very much for the effort she makes every day to 
make certain that the budget reflects the priorities of the American 
people.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________