[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H13769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CLAIMS VERSUS TRUTH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ganske). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, the last few months the congressional Democrats 
have tried to scare the American people, using all kinds of scare 
tactics and disinformation with twisted rhetoric.
  I would like to point out to you a typical example of how wrong it 
is. First one Medicare, my golly, I just heard the story that this is 
gutting Medicare cuts, and the dangerous Medicare cuts, et cetera. Let 
us take a look because I would like to have the American people make 
their own judgment.
  It seems like the argument is Medicare part B. Part B is to pay for a 
doctor's bills, et cetera, long-term care. The way it is right now, 
senior citizens pay about one-third, $46.10. They cost Government three 
times more than that.
  So what happens right now, one-third is paid by the senior citizens, 
two-thirds paid by the other taxpayers, younger generation. The other 
ones subsidize senior citizens by this ratio.
  Take a look at this. Starting next year, our friends want to do this 
one-quarter paid by the senior citizens, three-quarters by the other 
taxpayers. We said ``no'' because in good time perhaps, maybe, but we 
do not have any money. We would like to keep it one-third, two-thirds 
relationship, continuing the next 7 years so we can balance the budget.
  Where is the cut? This is what they call a cut. They would like to 
spend this much. We said ``no.'' Let us maintain present situation. 
They call that a mean-spirited cut, deep cut, all kinds of rhetoric.
  Now, even though maintaining this relationship, because hospital 
costs have gone up anyway, everybody has to pay a little more. Senior 
citizens have to pay a few bucks more a month, and their younger 
generation has to pay a few dollars more to subsidize.
  Let us take a look at the next chart. Starting $46.10 a month, 
eventually at the end of 7 years it is going to go up to $87 a month. 
Mr. Clinton's plan is $83 at the end of seventh year. Strangely enough, 
next year, did it to less payment, I do not know why, perhaps election 
year, then go up. Eventually we are talking about $87 versus $83. The 
American people knows this. That is what is the difference in the Part 
B premium than what the Republicans propose and what Mr. Clinton 
proposes. It is about the same.
  Let us take a look at the next one. I mean, hearing this rhetoric 
that we are trying to put all of this poor working family out in the 
cold, they are talking about earned income tax credit. Many people do 
not know what is earned income tax credit. What it is, if you make 
money, you have a family, but not enough to support family, then 
Government pays you money. Look at what happens. This time, about this 
year, the Congress passed a law so you do not have to have children. 
Anybody can be eligible to receive the Government paychecks without 
having any children. That was different than original intent. Guess 
what happened here? Zoom, thousand percent increase.
  What we are trying to do is slow down a little bit. The blue line 
here, slow down by eliminating waste and fraud, and also we are trying 
to go back to the original intent that if you do not have any kids, if 
you do not have any children, you are not going to receive any EITC 
paychecks anymore from Government. That is all we are trying to do.
  Where is the cut? Where is the mean-spirited cut here?
  Let us take a look at the next example. Next one is a lunch program, 
taking food away from the mouths of children. What a grotesque twist of 
rhetoric. Actually, we are spending more money, to be exact, 37 percent 
more, from $4.5 billion in 1995 to $6.17 billion in the year 2002. Is 
that the cut? 37-percent increase is a cut?

  All we are trying to do is, there are so many programs right now, we 
are trying to consolidate into one program, also eliminate the middle 
man--in this case, Federal bureaucracy--so the local school district 
can get more money, in a sense, the children can get more money for 
their school lunch program.
  Tell me where the cut is.
  Finally, now they are trying to scare students. My God, they say we 
are cutting student loans and other educational aid.
  Let us take a look at this. Starting from 1995, continue going up at 
the end of the seventh year the budget shows student loan, $36.4 
billion, 48-percent increase. The student gets 48-percent increase in 
student loans.
  Is there a cut? I think we should stop this rhetoric.

                          ____________________