[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18912-S18914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Washington said a number of 
things that I want to respond to. I have a great deal of respect for 
the senior Senator from Washington, and he and I serve together as 
chairman and ranking member of an appropriations subcommittee. I have 
found him to be an extremely easy person to work with, and I have 
developed during that process great respect for his legislative 
abilities. But I think it is important to mention a number of things 
that I think need to be responded to in regard to his statement.

  He talks about the second crisis. The first crisis and the second 
crisis were caused not by the minority, which is the Democrats. The 
fact of the matter is that by October 1 of each year, it is the 
responsibility of the Congress to pass appropriations bills. The record 
is very clear. By October 1 of this year, the majority in the House and 
in the Senate had not passed bills that could be sent to the President.
  The second crisis referred to by the Senator from Washington again 
was not created by virtue of something that the Democrats did that was 
wrong, the minority did that was wrong. The fact of the matter is that 
the majority did not pass appropriations bills. This crisis that we 
have is not something caused by the minority. The fact of the matter 
is, on October 1 the bills were not passed.
  I also think it is important to acknowledge again on this floor, we 
hear constant talk about the fact that the majority is now pushing for 
a balanced budget. I think that is good. I think that is important. But 
the fact of the matter is that the 1993 budget plan that was passed in 
this body and the other body--it was the so-called Clinton plan--was 
the largest deficit-reduction plan in the history of this country. It 
reduced the deficit over $500 billion over a 5-year period of time, the 
largest deficit-reduction program in the history of this country.
  Yesterday it was an unusual day in the last couple years in this 
country. It was unusual because the stock market went down. It was an 
extremely unusual day that the market went down. Today it went back up. 
But the stock market is over 5,000, Dow Jones. The stock market has 
been hot. Why? Because the economy has been doing extremely well.
  We have had the lowest unemployment, lowest inflation in 40 or 50 
years; 

[[Page S18913]]
highest economic growth since the days of John Kennedy; corporate 
profits have never been higher. There has been a time or two in the 
past 200 years when they have been as high, but never higher than they 
are today.
  The Federal work force has been reduced by 175,000 people in the last 
2\1/2\ years, excluding the military; civilian reduction by 175,000. No 
wonder the economy is doing fine.
  That does not mean that we should not do some very important things 
regarding the annual deficits. They are too high, even though it is the 
largest deficit reduction plan in the history of this country. The 
deficits are too high and we should do better.
  There has been talk by a number of Senators from the other side about 
why did we not just approve this resolution that came from the House 
that calls for a balanced budget? The reason it was not approved, as 
indicated in the dialog between the majority and minority leader, is 
that the resolution needs an amendment. Why? Because it needs to 
protect priorities that we on this side feel are important: Medicare, 
Medicaid, veterans' benefits, education, the environment.
  Maybe it was an oversight. Whatever it is, if you are going to have a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution, a sense-of-this-Congress resolution, as 
to what we want, then you have to include the fact that we are willing 
to go for a 7-year balanced budget, but in the process of doing that, 
we want Medicare protected, we want Medicaid protected, veterans' 
benefits, environment, and education.
  So the resolution will pass tomorrow. We will stick those things in 
it and it will pass, as indicated by the majority leader and the 
minority leader.
  The reason we hang out and talk about certain things being important 
is because they are important. My friend, the minority whip, who has 
left the floor, has long been a supporter of a balanced budget, as has 
been many people in this Chamber, including the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee. I would put the balanced budget credentials of the 
senior Senator from Nebraska up against anybody in this Congress. It is 
not something that my friend from Nebraska suddenly said this year, 
``I'm retiring from Congress in a couple years. I think I'll come out 
for a balanced budget amendment.'' From the day he stepped in here, 
after his service as Governor of Nebraska, he started talking about a 
balanced budget.
  He has voted for balanced budgets. A constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget would have passed by probably 80 votes this year 
if--if--we had excluded Social Security trust funds. As a result of the 
majority not being willing to exclude the Social Security trust funds, 
the constitutional amendment failed, as well it should have failed.
  We are very concerned about Medicare. Why? Because today Medicare 
provides coverage for over 37 million Americans. Medicare has been 
successful in fulfilling its mission to provide health insurance 
coverage to America's senior citizens.
  Today, 99 percent of senior citizens have health care coverage. Why? 
Because of Medicare. That is not the way it was 30-odd years ago. 
Around 40 percent of the people who were senior citizens then had 
health insurance.
  It has been good. It has been good not only giving people peace of 
mind but it has extended their lives. For those 65 and older in the 
United States, life expectancy is now higher than in any country in the 
world, with the simple exception of Japan. And why? Most people who 
understand what has happened in this country in the last 30 years say 
it is because of Medicare.

  Medicare has been one of the primary reasons that poverty has been 
reduced among the elderly. When Medicare came into being, almost 30 
percent of senior citizens were below the poverty level. Now, Mr. 
President, it is about 12.5 percent--a dramatic reduction. One of the 
main reasons is because of Medicare.
  Medicare is a very efficient program. We bash Government programs. I 
have done a little of it myself, but do not bash Medicare, because it 
is a very good and it is a very efficient program. Medicare 
administrative costs average 2 percent of program outlays, compared 
with 5 percent for large group plans and as much as 25 percent for 
small group plans in the private sector. Medicare works and it works 
well, and it benefits all Americans regardless of income status.
  Mr. President, 83 percent of outlays go to beneficiaries with incomes 
of $25,000 or less. Only 3 percent goes to elderly individuals or 
couples with income in excess of $50,000. The No. 1 priority, Mr. 
President, for the minority is that any budget plan must continue 
Medicare's guarantee of high-quality medical care for senior citizens 
and people with disabilities by ensuring trust fund solvency and 
protecting beneficiaries.
  I have heard numerous statements on this floor of people coming and 
saying, ``The reason we're making all these punitive changes is because 
the Medicare trustees have said we have to do something or Medicare is 
going to go broke.''
  For 27 years, we have had Medicare in existence. Twenty-five of the 
twenty-seven years the trustees have reported the program is going to 
go broke and, as a result of that--it is a pay-as-you-go system--we 
have had to change the way that we fund Medicare, and we need to do it 
now.
  Any plan that we come up with must ensure the viability of the 
Medicare trust fund for at least 10 years, must protect Medicare 
beneficiaries from premium increases beyond current law, and promote 
changes that would not drive up overall costs.
  We must keep Medicare a first-class program, something we are all 
proud of and especially something senior citizens are proud of. In 
doing that, we must ensure the viability of hospitals and other 
critical care health care providers in rural and urban areas.
  I think it is important that we understand that we, the minority, 
have been fighting to protect Medicare. Why? Because some of the 
leaders, Mr. President, on the other side are talking about Medicare 
withering on the vine, and the GOP plan threatens to have Medicare 
wither on the vine by encouraging doctors to leave the current Medicare 
program and penalizing seniors who choose to stay. They are extreme 
cuts--$270 billion. They may have been dropped, with the latest CBO 
numbers, but they are large cuts and budget gimmicks.
  One of the things that is suggested in the plan by the majority is 
that there be group health care plans that allow managed care. That is 
fine, but the fine print says that the $50 billion that the majority 
says will be saved with that program, if they are not saved, if those 
savings do not come, there will be across-the-board cuts in Medicare.
  So we have to watch very closely that these plans do not use budget 
gimmickry. We talk about more choice. We have to make sure there are 
not bad choices.
  Mr. President, I want to just mention a couple things, and I do this 
because we have people coming on the floor and saying, ``Democrats 
don't want to balance the budget. The minority doesn't want to balance 
the budget.'' We want to balance the budget. We have voted for a 7-year 
balanced budget plan, but we want to protect Medicare, we want to 
protect Medicaid, and the program the majority has put out repeals the 
current Medicaid program which serves 36 million needy and vulnerable 
Americans and replaces it with an underfunded and inflexible block 
grant.
  The majority proposal ends a guarantee for 18 million children and 8 
million women who receive preventive and primary care, 4 million 
elderly Americans who get help with Medicare payments--it would end 
that--6 million disabled Americans, who receive coverage for physician 
and hospital and specialized services. The cuts there are as much as 
$420 billion because, remember, any money that goes to the States from 
the Federal Government is matched by the States. So it is a double loss 
for recipients.
  Mr. President, I know the hour is late. I know the streets are icy, 
but I have been waiting to get the floor. I want the Record to make 
sure that it reflects that the minority believes in certain standards. 
We believe in not devastating Medicare, and we want to maintain 
Medicaid so that it is a system that does not--as the report says by 
the Consumers' Union and the National Senior Citizens Law Center, some 
395,000 nursing home patients could lose their Medicaid coverage under 
the proposal the majority has put out. Without these payments, nursing 
homes could force patients to leave 

[[Page S18914]]
unless the families pay for care. This was not just dreamed up. If you 
read the Washington Post and other major newspapers, that came out 
yesterday, and that is what the story says. Families are going to have 
to start paying.
  Mr. President, I have a lot more to say. I am only going to say that 
we have a lot of problems with the deficit that comes every year. We 
have a bigger problem with the debt that is accumulating. That was not 
done with the Democratic administrations. We have $5 trillion in debt. 
I hope that we will not only talk about balancing the budget on a 
yearly basis but we talk about doing something with the underlying 
debt. I hope that is something that is addressed in the immediate 
future. Not only should we be concerned about the annual deficits, but 
the underlying $5 trillion in debt is something we must address.

                          ____________________