[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 23, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H741-H742]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CONSIDER PRIORITIES DURING BUDGET CUTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized 
during morning business for 3 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised and disappointed when 
I saw that the Republican leadership walked away from the budget 
negotiations with the President about a week ago.
  Frankly, I thought that the President went very far, maybe even too 
far, just before we adjourned 2 weeks ago when he not only agreed to a 
balanced budget, which we all support, but agreed to a 7-year budget, 
put it on the table, agreed to put forward a budget that was based on 
CBO estimates. The President essentially did everything the Republicans 
asked for as part of the negotiation and, instead of reacting and 
saying, OK, now we have a 7-year budget and it is CBO and it uses our 
numbers, instead of sitting down and saying now we can work out the 
differences over our priorities and still protect Medicare and Medicaid 
and the environment and education, instead they said, ``No, that is not 
good enough. We are going to walk out. We don't want to have any 
negotiations.'' That is incredible.
  We have gone on now for, I guess, about 6 months, and all during that 
time the Republican leadership has said that they supported the 
priorities of Medicare and Medicaid and also to 

[[Page H742]]
protect the environment and education, but now it is abundantly clear 
that is not really what they are all about. They are insisting on the 
level of tax cuts or tax breaks, mostly for wealthy individuals and for 
large corporations, that would make devastating cuts in Medicare and 
Medicaid. They are saying that, ``We want to use those cuts to pay for 
a tax cut or tax breaks primarily for the wealthy Americans.''
  It really seems to me at that point there is not much more the 
President can do.
  There was an article in the Star Ledger, which is the largest 
circulation daily in my home State of New Jersey that I just wanted to 
quote from briefly today in the time that I have left because I think 
it says it all.
  It says that, ``We need an agreement on a balanced budget, but we 
don't want a budget agreement at all costs,'' which is essentially what 
the Republican leadership is asking for, and I quote from the Star 
Ledger. It says, ``The cost is too great if the budget agreement 
includes a tax cut benefiting mostly those in the upper income 
brackets, as this Republican one does. In fact, there is no reason for 
a tax cut at all. Balanced budgets and tax cuts are goals that work at 
cross purposes. The cost is too great if it means turning over 
Medicaid, medical care for the indigents, to the States. That would 
mean ending the right to medical care for those who can afford it least 
and are most vulnerable. It would be a great leap backward for this 
country. And the cost is too great if it means slashing Medicare to the 
point where the cost to the aged for their premiums becomes painful, 
which is what is proposed in this Republican budget. If there continues 
to be no national health care program, then some cost adjustments must 
be made in financing Medicare to prepare for the crush of retiring 
baby-boomers in the next century, but to include the overhaul in a 
political budget that is meant to work against aid for the indigent and 
the elderly is not the proper context. The cost is too great.''
  And that is what I would say to my colleagues on the other side. We 
would like a balanced budget, but we cannot have it at this great cost 
to our priorities.

                          ____________________