[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 203 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18814-S18817]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE BUDGET IMPASSE

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was asked by our floor leader, Senator 
Dorgan, to come to the floor and offer my views on what is going on 
with the impasse now facing us.
  First, I think it is important to recognize how well the country is 
doing. We tend to hear so much negativism about our country. The fact 
of the matter is that our country is doing remarkably well 
economically. Why do I say that? We have had the lowest inflation and 
unemployment in some 40 years. Mr. President, we have had corporate 
profits that have never been higher. They have sometimes been as high, 
but never higher. We have economic growth that is as good as it has 
been since the days of John Kennedy. The stock market has been going up 
significantly. There have been some people crying out that it went down 
today. Well, there have been adjustments coming. Any stock forecaster 
would tell you that there would be adjustments. It happens toward the 
end of the year every year. With this remarkable climb we have had in 
the stock market, it is not unexpected.

  I also say, Mr. President, that we have heard a lot in years gone by 
about Government being too big. I think those of us in this Chamber 
would acknowledge that Government has gotten too big. But what has 
happened in the last 2\1/2\ years? We have 175,000 fewer Federal 
employees today than we had 2\1/2\ years ago, excluding the military. I 
think that is pretty good. I think it speaks well of what has happened 
in this Government and in this country in the last several years. Now, 
we have not done enough, but let us talk about the good things that are 
happening in the country.
  This economy is on fire. It is doing great. What about the so-called 
CR, the continuing resolution? It is something the American public 
hears all the time. Why are we talking about a CR, a continuing 
resolution? We are talking about a continuing resolution because, each 
year, by the first of October, we 

[[Page S18815]]
have 13 appropriations bills we are supposed to pass. It takes 13 
appropriations bills to allow our Government to function during the 
year. We have a yearly appropriation for those 13 different 
subcommittees. Well, this year, we did not do our work. I say, 
respectfully, that it is the Republican leadership in the House and the 
Senate that has not allowed the bills to pass.
  The last time we had a Government shutdown, 26 days ago, 850,000 
people were out of work. We were able to pass, since then, a number of 
bills, especially the Defense appropriations bill. As a result of that, 
we have approximately 500,000 fewer employees that are subject to being 
furloughed now than we did then. I wish the 250,000 did not have to be, 
and they should not be. But it is the result of the appropriations 
bills not passing. It has nothing to do with a balanced budget. It has 
nothing to do with increased taxes or lower taxes. It has to do with 
the fact that this body and the other body--the House and the Senate--
have not done their work. We are at this budget impasse now as a result 
of the appropriations bills not having been passed.
  Much of the rhetoric, Mr. President, has focused on who gets what and 
why do they get it? I think we need to look at what Kevin Phillips 
said, who is a Republican political analyst. He said a number of 
things, but about 6 weeks ago, he said this, and it was at the time 
this budget fiasco was very heated:

       Spending on Government programs, from Medicare and 
     education to home heating oil assistance, is to be reduced in 
     ways that principally burden the poor and the middle class, 
     while simultaneously taxes are to be cut in ways that 
     predominantly benefit the top one or two percent of 
     Americans.

  This is not something that some wild-eyed liberal Democrat said. This 
is not something any Democrat said. This is a Republican, who is noted 
in Washington for being hard on Democrats when necessary, and hard on 
Republicans when he feels it is appropriate. With this budget battle 
that is going on, he feels it is appropriate to lay the cards out where 
they exist. Who benefits from the budget proposal the Republicans have 
given us? The top 1 or 2 percent of Americans. Who is burdened? The 
middle class and the poor.
  Much of the rhetoric, as I have indicated in the debate over the 
budget, has focused on numbers: OMB versus CBO. What I would like to 
talk tonight about is not Medicaid, even though there is certainly room 
to talk about that. I am not going to talk about education and how my 
senior colleague, who just left the room, has done as much as any 
person who ever served in the Legislature on a national basis to direct 
attention to education, or how the programs the Republican leadership 
have given us affects education negatively. I am not going to talk 
about that at any length tonight. I am going to talk, Mr. President, 
about Medicare and how important Medicare is.
  The budget we have been given from the Republican leadership says 
they want to cut $270 billion. That is the bill the President vetoed--
$270 billion in Medicare cuts. I think it is interesting to note--and I 
do not think it is coincidental--that we have $270 billion in Medicare 
cuts and $245 billion approximately in tax cuts. Who do those tax cuts 
benefit? The top 1 or 2 percent of Americans. We need to eliminate the 
deficit. There is no question about that. We need to eliminate the 
deficits and, I think, do something about the debt, the $5 trillion 
that has accumulated. I do not think we can rest on our laurels, that 
there has been general agreement to balance the budget in 7 years 
because, by then, we will have another $l.5 trillion in debt that we 
are going to have to pass on to my grandchildren and their children. I 
hope, Mr. President, that we will be concerned about not the deficit--
as we should be--but how about being concerned about the debt, the $5 
trillion that we owe?
  It is easy to debate these numbers, the deficit, which we continually 
talk about, and ignore the debt. I would rather, instead of having $245 
billion in tax cuts, which help the top 1 or 2 percent of Americans, we 
take that money and apply it toward the debt, the accumulated $5 
trillion. That would make a significant dent in the debt--$245 billion.
  What is often missing from the debate when we talk about all these 
numbers, Mr. President, is the policy argument. What are the policy 
ramifications of what each side is attempting to do? Will the decisions 
we reach today affect all Americans tomorrow? If so, in what way will 
these decisions be felt by the American public? It is this often 
unspoken question we fail to communicate in our efforts to assemble a 
balanced budget plan.

  Both sides are in agreement about achieving a balanced budget. You 
cannot debate that now. There are very few who say we should not have a 
balanced budget. The vast majority of Democrats and Republicans agree 
on a balanced budget. They have agreed on a time certain--a date. Great 
strides have been made in that regard.
  The budget debate really centers on the priorities that matter in 
getting the budget to a balance. Again, Mr. President, I was unable to 
put this on a chart, but Kevin Phillips, on public radio, on the 14th 
said:

       The Republicans in Congress are back with a foolproof 
     guaranteed deficit elimination scheme in which the deficit 
     will shrink from roughly $200 billion in 1996 to nothing, 
     zero, in 2002. The other zero in this equation, I am sorry to 
     say, is the IQ of anybody who believes it. Since the 
     Republicans started producing deficit elimination charts in 
     the early 1980's, their three real goals have been very 
     different. The first has been to cut taxes for the 
     constituencies and avoid new taxes; the second has been to 
     shrink the role of government and the safety net; and the 
     third has been to help the stock and bond markets.
       These parts, at least, have worked. The tax rates have come 
     down. The rich have gotten richer and the Dow Jones 
     Industrial Average jumped from under 1,000 to over 5,000. 
     Deficit reduction isn't the real goal. Most of the time it 
     has been a slogan for one of the biggest economic con games 
     of the late 20th century United States.

  I repeat, ``Deficit reduction isn't the real goal. Most of the time 
it has been a slogan for one of the biggest economic con games of the 
late 20th century United States.''
  So we will talk a little bit about policy here tonight. We will talk 
about how we need to be concerned about Medicare. I can defend 
Medicare. The first elected job I had was to represent the then largest 
hospital board in Nevada, Clark County, where Las Vegas is located.
  During the time I served on the hospital board, Medicare came into 
being. The first period of time I served on the hospital board, when 
somebody came to that county institution and they were brought by their 
son or their daughter or their husband or their wife or a neighbor, 
they had to sign that they would be responsible for that hospital and 
doctor bill. When you brought your mother or your father or your 
husband or your wife to that hospital and you did not pay, we had a 
collection department that went out after you and sued you. You brought 
your sick mother or father or husband or wife to that hospital, you 
paid.
  Prior to 1960, less than 40 percent of the American public, of senior 
citizens, had any kind of health insurance. Now, 99 percent of senior 
citizens have health insurance. We made great strides during that 
period of time.
  I feel the program called Medicare should be defended. I know it has 
some warts on it that we need to have a cosmetologist take care of. I 
am willing to do that. I know thousands and thousands of Nevadans who 
rely almost exclusively on this program as a means of living.
  Mr. President, 30 years ago when I served on the hospital board and I 
had just left back here--I worked as a Capitol policeman, went to law 
school back here--when I left here, almost as soon as I left, Congress 
passed Medicare. The Democrats passed it. The Republicans, Mr. 
President, opposed it. They opposed its creation 30 years ago.
  The idea was simple: Create a program for senior citizens to have 
quality medical care while ensuring that seniors have financial 
stability through their retiring years. Very simple idea, not very 
complex. We needed a program that would allow seniors to have good 
medical care. It sought to avoid the situation where if you brought in 
somebody and they could not pay then, you sued them. That is not 
appropriate.
  Yet the fervor with which this simple idea was opposed by certain 
people was significant, some say unprecedented. It is because of the 
majority party's historic opposition to Medicare that many in this 
country today are skeptical of 

[[Page S18816]]
their efforts now to say, ``We want to reform the program.'' If I have 
heard it once I heard it a hundred times, my friends on the other side 
of the aisle saying, ``We are not cutting Medicare; we are only cutting 
the rate of growth of Medicare.''
  What they fail to acknowledge is that we have an aging population. 
Significant numbers of new people come on Medicare every day, and in 
addition to having an aging population we have rapidly increased health 
care costs.
  Now, we have a health care crisis in this country today. No question 
about it. We had it last year. We tried to do something about it last 
year. We were stopped from doing it principally by the health insurance 
industry, but we were stopped from doing it.
  Now we have people saying we have a health care crisis. I acknowledge 
that. Remember last year when we talked about managed care and people 
walked in here from the other side of the aisle saying managed care 
takes away choice. Well, I think some of the suggestions from my 
friends on the other side of the aisle about doing managed care with 
Medicare is a good idea. It was a good idea last year and is a good 
idea this year. I think we cannot have the sole burden of reducing 
health care costs on the backs of senior citizens.
  I ask rhetorically to my friends on the other side, if you were so 
opposed to Medicare then, why should the American public believe you 
are interested in saving it now? If you look at some of the rhetoric, 
it makes a person wonder. Just last October--that is just a few weeks 
ago--the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, was 
quoted as saying:

       Now let me talk about Medicare. We don't get rid of it in 
     round one because we don't think that would be politically 
     smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a 
     transition, but we believe it's going to wither on the vine 
     because we think people will leave it voluntarily.

  The 24th day of October, 1995, is when he said that.
  Now, I ask my peers, who is not bargaining in good faith? People who 
think that Medicare is going to wither on the vine?
  I think Medicare is worth defending. I think it should be worth 
defending for lots of people, because it works. Look at the differences 
between 1964 and 1965 and now and you will reach the same conclusion. 
In 1995, it is taken as a given that elderly are more financially 
secure. They live longer and enjoy greater access to health care in 
their golden years. This is not because of tax breaks they earned 
during their lifetimes or because of market forces. Rather, it is 
attributable to the successful programs such as Medicare that we have 
passed in this and the other body. Since its inception about 30 years 
ago, Medicare has extended the life expectancy of senior citizens and 
improved their quality of life.
  Remember, all we want to do with Medicare is allow senior citizens to 
have health care available to them, but quality health care and at a 
cost that would not devastate them. Since its inception Medicare has 
both extended the life expectancies of seniors and improved their 
quality of life. I will debate that with anyone, any time.
  What about the specifics? Because of Medicare, and Medicare 
principally, we have made significant advances on cataract removal. We 
can all remember years ago when someone had cataract surgery, they were 
hospitalized. It was serious surgery. Now they do it in outpatient. 
Why? Because of Medicare. They have done so many cataract surgeries now 
they have it down to a very specific science, and they do it quickly. 
They do it with implants and all kinds of things that would not have 
been thought of 10 or 20 years ago. Joint replacement, cardiac bypass, 
heart surgery, these are some of the advances made principally because 
of Medicare. Because of the funding of Medicare, seniors do not have to 
break the bank to pay for these procedures.
  In 1965, 28\1/2\ percent of senior citizens lived below the poverty 
line. In 1995, just less than half that, 12.9 percent live below the 
poverty line.
  We must in this country be doing something right. Why do we have all 
the doomsayers, all the people talking about how bad we are? The 
economy is doing well. Seniors are not as much in poverty as they used 
to be. Does this mean that Medicare is untouchable? Of course, not. We 
need to address the problems in a responsible manner. But let us 
address them keeping in mind this truth. This Federal initiative--
Medicare was a Federal initiative--is accomplishing the simple goal it 
was designed to achieve, improving the lives of old people in America, 
of senior citizens in America.
  It is true that Medicare costs more today than it did in 1965. But it 
is true of all health insurance. Mr. President, maybe we in this world 
of political correctness develop terms of art that do not focus on the 
problem. My grandmother lived alone. Her husband died, my grandfather 
who I never knew. But I knew my grandmother. She was so proud of the 
fact that she got an old age pension check every month--that is what 
she called it, ``old age pension check''--because it gave her dignity 
and independence.
  That is why seniors are better off than they used to be--because they 
have the ability to be independent and have dignity through Medicare, 
through the Social Security check that my grandmother referred to as an 
``old age pension check.'' Those kinds of things have made it better 
for people who are in their golden years in America today.
  Medicare costs more today than it did in 1965. I repeat that is true 
of all health insurance. Increasing knowledge of diseases and causes, 
and the technological advances have transformed the care that all 
insurers provide. Health care today is much more effective and, of 
course, more expensive. I acknowledge that. Health care today is a very 
technical procedure that affects all Americans. I remind everyone that 
privatization is something we need to look to. But Medicare costs have 
not increased as much as health care costs in the private sector.
  So those that push privatization--which we all do--should understand 
that Medicare costs are behind the costs of medicine in the private 
sector.
  I do not see how you can say that taking an arbitrary figure like 
$270 billion is going to protect the Medicare from bankruptcy.
  I have also heard so many times that trustees say if we do not put 
some more money into Medicare it is going to go broke. Twenty-five out 
of 27 years Medicare has been in existence they have said the same 
thing. Medicare is a program that has been a pay-as-you-go program. Of 
course, the trustees have acknowledged the fact that we have to figure 
out better ways to fund and figure out ways to cut expenses in 
Medicare. But to have the statement made on and on and continually and 
over and over that the trustees say it is going to go broke as if it is 
some new revelation--they have been saying this from the very 
beginning, and what do we do? We fix it every time as we will this 
time.
  We also hear a lot, Mr. President, that $270 billion is going to 
protect it. It is not. That is an arbitrary figure, in my opinion made 
only to take care of the tax breaks for the 1 or 2 percent of Americans 
who will get most of the benefit. About two-thirds of the projected 
savings would come from reduced payments to hospitals, nursing homes, 
and physicians without any basic change in the system responsible for 
rising costs.

  That does not sound to me that we are reforming Medicare and 
strengthening Medicare. This does not sound like reform. It sounds 
like, if anything, that it would improve the delivery of health care 
for the elderly; that is, cut payments to hospitals, nursing homes, and 
physicians without any basic change in the system. Indeed, the policy 
ramifications of this proposal might well undermine the quality of 
services, threaten the economic stability of providers, and reduce the 
availability of services.
  Another 20 to 25 percent of the proposed savings to the Government 
from the program which the President vetoed would come from increased 
payments by beneficiaries. Having beneficiaries pay more can hardly be 
called a strengthening of Medicare. This is particularly true since 
average out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries have been steadily 
rising, and would grow even more with this plan. It is important to 
read beyond the rhetoric, over the numbers, and beyond the smoke and 
mirrors. The proposal that was vetoed by the President had real life 
consequences for lots of people.
  So, Mr. President, when we hear a lot of rhetoric about returning to 
the good 

[[Page S18817]]
old days, I am not sure senior citizens want a return to the good old 
days. I think they are happier with Medicare, and with a Social 
Security check coming in on a monthly basis. Remember: The Social 
Security checks they get are not welfare. That is money that is paid 
into a fund by employers and employees.
  So I suggest that we have experienced a lot of good since the 
creation of some of these programs, and since they were initially 
debated. By most measures, the United States in 1995 is a dramatically 
better place to live than it was in 1965 if you are a senior citizen.
  Of course, we have to do something about the crime that ravages 
senior citizens--violent crime, crimes involving telemarketing, and 
other things like that. We have to do a better job there. But as far as 
economic safety, security, 1995 for senior citizens is much better than 
1965. The economy is more than twice as large in terms of real dollar. 
Poverty has declined in the senior population despite a larger 
population.
  There are other good things that have happened. Twenty-five years ago 
the Cuyahoga River caught fire. A river in Ohio started burning. It was 
then determined that maybe we should do something about cleaning up our 
rivers and streams. The Clean Water Act was passed 25 years ago. What 
do we have now? We have greatly improved water. At the time the 
Cuyahoga River caught fire about 80 percent of the rivers and streams 
in this country were polluted. Now those figures have almost reversed. 
We do not have 80 percent of our rivers and streams polluted now. We 
have a little over 20 percent. We have made dramatic strides in clean 
water.
  Clean air--even though we have millions of more cars on the road 
today than we had 25 years ago, because of the Clean Air Act our air is 
cleaner than it was 25 years ago. Scientific advances have allowed us 
to do that. Most people are healthier, living longer, and most jobs are 
less dangerous. Most discrimination has ended, especially formal 
discrimination. Education levels are at an all-time high even though 
our education system needs a lot more work done on it. I acknowledge 
that. But, Mr. President, out of the 141 top universities in the world, 
the United States has 129 out of 141. Our higher education is not 
touched by any other country. We need a lot of work with our elementary 
and secondary schools. Of course, we do. That is why we need to be 
putting more money in instead of less.

  Personal freedom has been improved in modern-day America more than it 
was in the past. In fact, personal freedom has never been greater than 
it is today. Once reserved for the very rich, air travel have become 
commonplace.
  I believe we are overlooking the reasons why the final decision of 
balancing the budget has to be thought out and thought out well. There 
are programs and laws that improve lives, and they are worthy of 
defending as a matter of principle. It is not just about policy and 
numbers. It is about people. That is what this debate is about. The 
decisions we reach in the next few days, the next few weeks, and the 
next few months will have lasting consequence on all of us.
  I close by referring to a Republican who said, ``Spending on 
government programs, from Medicare and education, to home heating oil 
assistance, is to be reduced in ways that is principally a burden to 
the poor and the middle class--``talking about the bill the President 
vetoed''--while simultaneously taxes are to be cut in ways that 
predominantly benefit the top one or two percent of Americans.''
  So I say to those within the sound of my voice, the debate, Mr. 
President, is a debate on the difference between right and wrong. We 
feel we are on the right side of the issue and that we have to stand up 
for principle.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________