[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 5, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13937-H13938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    NOT WHETHER TO BALANCE THE BUDGET, BUT HOW TO BALANCE THE BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, Just as the previous speaker did, I wish to 
speak about the budget deficit. However, contrary to what the previous 
speaker did, I wish to put politics aside and just talk about some of 
the facts that are involved.
  Mr. Speaker, we currently have a national debt which, within a week 
or two, will exceed $5 trillion, or more than three times the amount of 
the annual revenues of the United States of America.
  Furthermore, over the past several years we have had budget deficits 
in the neighborhood of $200 billion or more a year and, in general, 
they have been greater than 10 percent of the annual revenues of the 
United States of America.
  Let us break that down into human terms, as the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] just did. That means that each and every man, 
woman, and child in the United States owes $19,000 as their share of 
the Federal debt. Every man, woman, and child in this country. Every 
American child born comes into this world with a debt of $19,000.

  Currently, each of us, every man, woman, and child in the United 
States, pays $1,000 per year, roughly, in interest alone on the 
national debt. In other words, of the amount of money paid in taxes to 
the Federal Government, roughly $1,000 per capita goes to cover the 
interest.
  Mr. Speaker, I pointed out a week or two ago that if any one of us as 
a family owed an amount of money three times or greater than our annual 
average income, and continued to spend 10 percent more than our annual 
income, and we went to a credit counselor because our credit cards had 
been cut off and we could not get any further loans, and we went to a 
credit counselor and said that we would like to balance our budget, but 
we wanted 7 years to do it, a credit counselor would say, ``You are 
crazy. You are in trouble. You have to balance your budget this year.''
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, we as a Congress are proposing to balance the 
budget in 7 years and there are a number of Members, many from the 
other side of the aisle, who say that is too soon; we need 10 years or 
9 years or 8 years. I think 7 years is too long and I think Uncle Sam 
needs a credit counselor, someone who would shake some sense into our 
heads and say, ``You need to balance the budget now.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think as a nation we have become addicted to spending 
money. We expect to get services without paying for them. I learned 
long ago that there is no such thing as a free lunch. We as a nation 
have to learn that. If we want services, we have to pay for them. If we 
are not willing to pay for them, then we had better go without the 
services. That applies across the board.
  As I said, I was trying to put politics aside here and just deal with 
the facts. I would say that too many people in the debate here, and 
between the Congress and the White House, have gotten into political 
discussions.
  The President, for example, tried to use Medicare to defeat our 
continuing resolution and scare the elderly about what might happen to 
Medicare. Some Members on the other side of the aisle continue their 
refrain about cutting Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the rich. We 
just saw an example of that.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I am also going to fault the Republicans, because I 
personally think that a number of things that we are seeking to cut are 
being cut too severely, and other things that are not being cut should 
be cut or should be cut more than they are. I think all sides have to 
work together and recognize the overwhelming nature of the budget 
deficit, and recognize that this has to be our top priority.
  That is why I am delighted that we were able to reach agreement with 
the White House that we will, indeed, balance the budget in 7 years and 
that we will, indeed, work on this together.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to do more than just reach agreement that we 
will do it. We have to work on the details. This House of 
Representatives has spent most of this year working on that specific 
issue: preparing a budget that will achieve balance in 7 years. I am 
proud of the work that has been done in this Chamber and in the Senate. 
We have sent that bill to the President. He has said he will veto it, 
and I suspect he will.
  But then, Mr. Speaker, comes the real work. Not simply posturing to 
the public and saying we are going to injure the elderly by cutting 
Medicare, which in fact we are not, but rather we have to sit down 
together and negotiate in good faith and say, ``Look, we have agreed to 
balance the budget in 7 years and the question is not whether or not we 
should; the question is how we are going to do it and what we are going 
to cut.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is going to take a very detailed and active and 
well-intentioned debate in the weeks ahead.

[[Page H 13938]]


  CONSUMER REPORTS LABELS GOP MEDICAID PROPOSAL BUM DEAL FOR AMERICAN 
                                FAMILIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the prior speaker that, 
in fact, that credit counselor would say, ``You are crazy.'' Crazy that 
in a difficult time economically for our country, that we are about to 
provide a $245 billion tax break for the wealthiest Americans. That is 
a free lunch for the wealthiest Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we have spent a lot of time in this Congress talking 
about the cuts in Medicare contained in the GOP budget. Democrats 
believe that those cuts go too far, too fast and would be harmful to 
the 37 million seniors who rely on Medicare for their basic health 
care.
  But, it isn't just Medicare cuts which threaten the health security 
of our senior citizens. The proposed budget also makes deep cuts in 
Medicaid which put seniors and their families at risk.
  Last week, the Consumers Union, better known as the publisher of 
Consumer Reports, warned that the Medicaid overhaul would add 
significant new financial burdens on husbands, wives, and adult 
children of nursing home residents that could force families into 
poverty. The group estimates that the $163 billion in proposed cuts 
will cause hundreds and thousands of nursing home residents to lose 
their Medicaid coverage.
  We all know Consumer Reports as the publication that tells us if 
we're getting a good deal or a bum deal on a new car or a new computer. 
This time, they've looked at the Republican Medicaid proposal from a 
consumer's point of view and have declared it a bum deal for American 
families.
  Currently, Medicaid covers 60 percent of nursing home patients 
nationwide. The average cost of nursing home care is approximately 
$38,000 a year. Without Medicaid, nursing home care would be beyond the 
reach of middle-income Americans.
  According to the Consumers Union, families of nursing home residents 
can expect the following changes if these Medicaid changes are 
approved:
  Adult children may be held financially liable for the nursing home 
bills of their parents.
  Family assets including homes may be sold or seized by Medicaid 
liens.
  No one is guaranteed Medicaid nursing home eligibility; States may 
set unreasonably low income levels so that thousands of people will be 
denied help in paying the high costs of nursing home care.
  Families may be forced to spend their life savings for long-term care 
of a loved one.
  A representative from the National Senior Citizens Law Center, 
Patricia Nemore, said of these changes: ``Congress is taking us back to 
a time when it was commonplace for Americans to lose their homes and 
their life savings to ensure that their husbands, wives, or parents had 
adequate nursing home care.'' She is right, this policy is wrong.
  Yesterday, I met with people in my district who have parents in 
nursing homes. They told me that these changes would be devastating to 
their attempts to take care of their parents in their old age.
  Jack and Patricia D'Urso of Branford, CT, have seven children and two 
parents, both in nursing homes. Without the help of Medicaid, they 
don't know how they would care for their parents. While comfortable in 
their retirement, they simply do not have the resources to pay 
approximately $80,000 a year to pay for long-term care of two parents.
  Zelda Cooper of Hamden, CT, has two parents receiving nursing home 
care. She could not believe that Congress would consider ending the 
guaranteed coverage that her family relies on and has no idea how she 
would care for her parents should they be forced out of their nursing 
home.
  Now, my Republican colleagues have made much ado of late about losing 
their message on the budget. They theorize that the American people 
aren't with them because they haven't heard the Republican message. The 
opposite is true. The message is coming through loud and clear to the 
American people. In fact, the more the American people know, the less 
they like the Gingrich budget.
  It's not a bad message that is hurting Republicans, it's bad policy. 
It is bad policy to ask families to hawk their homes to pay for the 
nursing home care for loved ones. It is bad policy to impoverish 
middle-income families to balance the budget. That's why Consumer 
Reports has labeled the GOP Medicaid proposal is a bum deal for 
American families.

                          ____________________