[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 5, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13975-H13976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      MISPLACED BUDGET PRIORITIES

  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 was listening to the remarks of my 
colleague with regard to the national debt, and I certainly agree with 
him that we need to balance the budget. However, I would suggest that 
we all agree that the budget needs to be balanced, and in fact, the 
President has also said many times that he wants the budget balanced. 
The problem is how do we do it. That is where the priorities come into 
place.
  One of the points that President Clinton has made and that I have 
made and that many of the Democratic leaders have made is that we have 
to look at this budget in human terms. What are the impacts? What do 
the numbers mean in real terms in terms of working American families, 
students, older Americans, the environment and many of the other 
priorities that President Clinton has articulated.
  The bottom line is that if we look at the Republican budget that 
passed this House and the Senate and is now on the President's desk, 
the priorities are misplaced. Too much of the emphasis is on 
cutting taxes or on giving tax breaks primarily for wealthy Americans 
and not enough emphasis is being placed on helping the average working 
person. Many of the cuts are on programs for senior citizens, 
education, particularly for student loans for students that want to go 
on to colleges or universities, and for the environment.

  One of the things that I keep pointing out is how much of the impact 
in terms of tax cuts or tax breaks go to wealthy Americans. According 
to the numbers of the Joint Committee on Taxation, 51 percent of 
taxpayers with incomes under $30,000 would, as a group, have a net tax 
increase under the Republican budget plan and nearly half of the 
benefits under the Republican tax package or under the budget, 48 
percent, that is, go to the top 12 percent of families, those with 
incomes of $100,000 or more.
  So we certainly want to balance the budget, but we want to do it in a 
way that does not give tax breaks to the wealthy and does not cut 
critical programs that are important to seniors, to students, and also 
to the environment, among other things.
  One of the things that received a lot of attention today in this 
regard was the Medicaid Program. Medicaid was the health care program 
that the Federal Government and States pay for for low-income people. 
Nearly 37 million people are currently covered by Medicaid, and about 
half of them are children.
  Well, surprisingly, in a way, but I am not surprised, because I know 
that doctors do care about health care for low-income people, today the 
American Medical Association, the main national association of 
physicians, came out with a statement that was very critical of the 
Republican Medicaid plan. Basically, they criticized the fact that 
under the Republican proposal as part of this budget, Medicaid would no 
longer be guaranteed, no longer be an entitlement, and it would be up 
to the 

[[Page H 13976]]
States to decide who they were going to cover. So for those 37 million 
Americans who now receive Medicaid payments or Medicaid benefits, all 
of a sudden, some of them may not receive it, and it would be up to the 
States to decide.
  President Clinton has asserted that it is crucial to maintain a 
Federal guarantee for Medicaid for those 37 million people, and that is 
one of the reasons he is going to or is likely to veto this bill, 
because it does not guarantee their coverage. Basically, what the 
doctors are saying, what the AMA is saying, is that they are concerned 
that States, because of the budget crunch, because they may not have 
the money to make up for the loss of Federal dollars that are going to 
come to the States in a block grant under the Republican proposal, will 
simply cut back on the number of people who are eligible, or on the 
quality of care. Basically, what they are saying is that because of the 
budget crisis that States face, they are going to have the same problem 
and they are not going to be able to actually cover all of these 
people.

  The AMA said today in The New York Times that the Federal Government 
should establish basic national standards of uniform eligibility for 
Medicaid, and should prescribe the minimum package of benefits that 
would be available to poor people in all States, basic standards of 
uniform, minimum, adequate benefits of Medicaid recipients.
  So what they are saying is that there should be a Federal standard, 
there should be a Federal guarantee for who is eligible for Medicaid, 
who gets the health insurance, and what kind of quality care will be 
provided for those low-income people.
  The trustees of the AMA also said, there needs to be an appropriate 
balance between States interest in securing increased flexibility in 
light of fewer Federal funds for Medicaid and the very real needs of 
the people the Medicaid program is intended to serve, most of whom have 
no other means of access to health care coverage.
  One of the arguments that the Republican leadership have put forth is 
that Medicaid should be more flexible and that is why it should go back 
to the States. However, what the doctors are saying is, it is very nice 
to have flexibility, but we have to make sure that the people who are 
covered by Medicaid now do have health care coverage. I know that that 
is going to be an important consideration for the President during 
these negotiations.

                          ____________________