[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H11665]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have to say I was amazed to hear the 
gentleman from Michigan who previously spoke to actually admit that the 
Republican leadership is using the debt ceiling as leverage in a 
political way. The effect on the economy, as was mentioned previously 
by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, is incredible. To think that the 
Government might go into default in order to achieve a political 
purpose on the part of the Republican leadership is incredible to me.
  I do not think that the voters last November, when they went to the 
polls, thought that they were voting to put the Federal Government in 
debt, into default. I was just reading from American history, remember 
when I was in grade school, how proud we are that over the history of 
the American Republic we have never defaulted on our debts and how 
important it was to just get our financial act together from the 
beginning of the United States to make sure that we would not default 
on our debts. Here is a Member of this body saying that the debt 
ceiling is being used as leverage in order to accomplish a political 
purpose. To me it is shocking. I cannot believe that he actually 
admitted that that is the case.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, is the stated goal of the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith] to bring about a balanced budget or to bring about 
political gain with the President of the United States? It is, in my 
judgment, to bring about a balanced budget. Nothing else has worked.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the point of the matter 
is that the gentleman from Michigan admitted that he was using the debt 
ceiling and the possibility of default for political purposes. Even if 
that political purpose is that somehow he sees in the long run that he 
is going to balance the budget, the effect of the Government possibly 
going into default and what that would mean for the economy, what it 
would mean for the millions of people who would see their interest 
rates rise and their mortgages have to go up, to me it is just totally 
irresponsible.
  I think that he points out the truth. That is exactly what the 
Speaker is threatening to do, to let the Government default in order to 
bully the President into signing his budget bill. I think it is totally 
uncalled for. At least the gentleman from Michigan was willing to admit 
it, but it is shocking to me that that is in fact the case.
  I wanted to speak, if I could, about the budget bill. As a member of 
the conference, the bottom line is the House and the Senate, of course, 
passed different budget bills and now have to get together, and there 
is a conference for that purpose to try to get the two versions 
together.

                              {time}  1915

  One of the things that I wanted to mention as a conferee, as a person 
who is going to be part of that conference, is that if is very possible 
and, I think to some extent, the Senate is already recognizing it is 
very possible, to essentially take this budget and minimize the tax 
cuts for the wealthy and the tax increases on the low- and middle-
income working families in order to restore Medicare and Medicaid to 
programs that continue to provide quality health care. The problem I 
have right now is that this Republican budget bill essentially is 
destroying Medicare and Medicaid health care programs for the elderly 
and also for poor people in this country in order to pay for a tax cut 
for the wealthy. Medicare is cut $270 billion; Medicare, $270 billion. 
Medicaid, about $180 billion, and yet we have a tax cut that primarily 
goes to wealthy Americans that is $245 billion.
  So, if in conference or if at some time later, after the President 
vetoes the bill, we actually were to decrease that tax cut and take 
back the tax cut from many of the wealthy Americans, we can put more 
money into Medicare and into Medicaid so that they are continually 
viable programs, and that is what needs to be done, that is what 
hopefully this conference will manage to do or ultimately will be 
accomplished when the President vetoes the bill and it comes back.
  I wanted to mention two points, if I could, as part of this Medicare 
and Medicaid debate. There has already been an effort on the part of 
the Senate, and if you look at the Senate bill versus the House bill in 
two areas that I think are very beneficial if we can get these changes, 
one is that the Senate-passed provisions continue to apply Federal 
nursing home standards unlike the House bill, and secondly, the Senate-
passed provisions require continued Medicaid coverage for low-income 
pregnant women and children and for disable persons.
  One of the worst aspects of this House bill is that in fact what it 
does is to take away standards for nursing homes. Essentially what it 
means is that the nursing homes are up to the will of the State if the 
State, of New Jersey for example, decides that it does not want to have 
any kind of standards for nursing home care.
  So I am hopeful that, when we get to conference, we can at least 
address those issues, trying to bring back the nursing home standards 
and trying to provide some guaranteed coverage for the disabled, for 
pregnant women, and also for children.

                          ____________________