[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 172 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S16574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         BUDGET RECONCILIATION

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to some 
of the speeches that were being made this morning, and I heard speeches 
that decry the President's use of his opportunities for political 
reasons and to disagree with virtually everything that President 
Clinton has accomplished. I find it a strange anomaly. As Yogi Berra, 
the famous New Jersey philosopher said, ``It's deja vu all over 
again.''
  I stand here listening to political speech after political speech in 
which the President of the United States is accused of being 
excessively political.
  I think we ought to look at the record just for a couple of minutes. 
First of all, we are faced with a reconciliation bill put out by the 
Republican majority--and I sit on the Budget Committee, and I can tell 
you this--and this is no surprise--that is going to take care of lots 
of wealthy wage earners, income earners, big investment yields, at the 
expense of lots of little people, if I can use that word to describe 
them, those who are dependent on Medicare for the sustenance, for the 
maintenance of their health, those who depend on Medicaid, in many 
cases the only source, the only source to enable them to get the health 
care they require.
  And so it is despite the fact that Health and Human Services has 
projected an $89 billion program to keep Medicare viable until the year 
2000, during which period we will have a chance to evaluate what is 
taking place, maybe get to work on some of the problems we know exist 
that are solvable and will not require less to be available to the 
Medicare beneficiary--waste, for instance. We know there is a 
significant amount of waste. We know that there is fraud--this is not a 
secret--amounting to billions of dollars.
  Those options ought to be examined before we turn to people who on 
balance in the senior community have less income than $25,000 a year, 
to the extent of three-quarters of that population. Three-quarters of 
the senior citizen population have incomes of less than $25,000 a year; 
35 percent have incomes of less than $10,000 a year.
  But yet we say here in a majority voice that it is OK. ``We're going 
to save you from the demise of this program. We're going to save you by 
making sure you pay more, significantly more, in premiums for part B, 
in higher copays, in higher deductibles. We're saving you. We're taking 
money out of your pocket and transferring it over to those on the other 
side.''
  By way of example, the House bill calls for a $20,000 tax break for 
those making $350,000 a year. The Senate, a more modest program, allows 
for a $6,000 tax break for those earning $350,000 a year. But at the 
same time, we are saying to the senior citizens, whose profile and 
income I just gave you, that they on balance will pay an average of 
$3,000 over a 7-year period more for their health care.
  There is something funny, as they say. And the question is raised, in 
my mind, whose side are we on? I think it is pretty obvious that on 
that side of the aisle, from there over, that they are on the side of 
the wealthy and the comfortable and those who have special access. It 
is obvious. The arithmetic is there. If only the American people get 
the full story, then we will start to see changes, I believe.
  We have already seen it. Congressmen in my State, who were dead full 
throttle behind the Gingrich proposal, the Contract With America, have 
now retreated because they are beginning to smell the ire of the 
constituency. They are beginning to hear the message that ``We do not 
want you to take money from us hard-working, modest-income people and 
transfer it to those who have been fortunate enough to make lots of 
money in this society.''
  So, Mr. President, as we look at the record that President Clinton 
has compiled, it is a pretty good one. We just finished a year in which 
we saw one of the smaller deficits in many years, $164 billion, and it 
is on the decline since President Clinton has taken over. We notice 
that we have a robust economy, that until the end of September, the 
economy grew at a very firm rate.
  At the same time, we see almost an ideal situation in terms of 
inflation--modest growth, so little as to be of relatively minor 
consequence in the perspective that the people in this financial 
community have.
  So, we have seen growth in the economy, we have seen growth in jobs, 
we have seen inflation under control, we have seen the budget deficit 
at a relatively low point. And yet the President gets little or no 
credit and lots of criticism as the debate obscures the reality of what 
is taking place in this reconciliation discussion: Taking care of those 
who have money, who have influence, who have power, at the expense of 
those who work hard, who plan their futures, and who are concerned 
about what tomorrow brings.

                          ____________________