[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H4615]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1930
 OPPOSITION TO THE TAX AND SPENDING PORTIONS OF THE RECONCILIATION BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. TIAHRT). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I oppose both the tax provisions 
and the spending provisions of the reconciliation bill. I want to say 
why, Mr. Speaker.
  The spending cuts that the House approved today fall mainly on the 
weakest members of our society, on the sick and on the elderly. 
Tomorrow we will be voting on tax cuts that mainly favor the wealthy. 
Today the House voted to rob from the poor so that tomorrow the 
majority can help the rich.
  I think that is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I oppose both parts of this 
strategy.
  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the poorest 
20 percent of families, those with an average annual income of only 
$9,200 will get $63 less because of the majority cuts in Federal 
spending and changes in taxes. Think of this, Mr. Speaker. The 
wealthiest 1 percent of the families, those with an average annual 
income of $442,000 come out as big winners. They will have $27,000 
more. That means that the extra money they get under this majority bill 
exceeds the total income of the poorest in this Nation.
  I represent many of those people, Mr. Speaker. I seek an appeal to 
the Congress to look at this bill that has these tax cuts that will not 
help the poorest of the poor.
  The majority here in the House wants to pay for these unfair tax cuts 
by squeezing large public hospitals like my public hospital in Miami, 
Jackson Memorial. It helps the poor and that is probably one of the few 
hospitals that must take the poor.
  The Republican majority cuts the Medicare payments to hospitals by 
$38 billion over 5 years. The reported bill, Mr. Speaker, is one that 
will certainly rob from the poor. I think that it is wrong, and 
certainly I oppose this strategy because it does fall on the weakest 
members of our society. It also cuts for hospitals like my public 
hospital the disproportionate share payment to hospitals like Jackson 
Memorial by another 13 billion over 5 years.
  You know who is going to take up that cost? The taxpayers, the middle 
income, the upper income, the poor; someone has to pay that share that 
no longer will the government assist in sharing enough to help 
hospitals like Jackson. That is a $51 billion hit on these kinds of 
hospitals.
  These hospitals treat the poorest in our communities. It is the poor 
who would end up getting less health care.
  Yesterday I tried to improve on part of the reconciliation bill by 
asking the Committee on Rules to make in order my bipartisan amendment 
to give supplemental security, which we call SSI, the Supplemental 
Security Income, and the Medicaid to 147,000 legal immigrants who have 
been living in this country who were in the country last August, but 
they are not covered by the reported Ways and Means proposal.
  You know who is going to have to take care of them and give them the 
health care? You are, Mr. Speaker, and I and those of us who are able 
to pay for that because, if you were not poor or elderly or disabled 
when this bill passed last year, then you are still in this country, 
and now when you get to be 64 years old and you become disabled and 
elderly, you are not covered.
  I offer this amendment with my dear colleague from Florida [Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen] and we also offer a way to pay for this, Mr. Speaker, for 
these needy people, but the Committee on Rules refused to let the House 
vote on our bipartisan way of improving the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we all would like to cut taxes. We know that the time 
has come that we can no longer spend where there are no resources. We 
understand that. We know that this is a time of belt tightening. We 
know that this is a time, as we go into the year 2000, that we must 
balance the budget. Well, you have decided to do that; the budget 
agreement has been cut. But this is not the time, not when we are 
asking the poor and the elderly to pay for the tax cuts.
  There is a fair way to cut taxes, but the way of the leadership is 
the wrong way. It worsens the spread between our wealthiest citizens 
and our poorest citizens. No one is here to say that poor and middle 
class people are not supposed to pay taxes, but I am saying that if 
there is a gap, it should be one that is equitable and that the rich 
will pay their share as well as the middle income and the poor.

                          ____________________