[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 45 (Monday, March 22, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3032-S3035]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this week we will have the budget for the 
Nation before the Senate for consideration. I want to speak now on that 
budget, and give special focus and attention to the concerns I have 
about how that budget was put together and its particular implications 
with regard to Social Security and to Medicare, and also with regard to 
other domestic priorities. Then I will express my concern on the 
priority that the Republican budget has given to tax cuts and how that 
relates to the Nation's priorities and to the Nation's needs.
  Mr. President, the Republican FY2000 budget resolution fails to meet 
the nation's priorities.
  It claims that it will extend the solvency of the Social Security 
Trust Fund. In reality, it would prevent President Clinton's proposed 
transfer of surplus funds to protect this important program for future 
generations.
  The Republican budget claims that it will set aside money for 
Medicare. In reality, it squanders those funds to pay for a tax cut for 
the rich.
  The Republican budget claims that it will improve education. In 
reality, it slashes funds for critical programs like Head Start, job 
training, and student aid to pay for increases in education.
  On the subject of Social Security, the Republican budget is an 
exercise in deception. The rhetoric surrounding the budget itself 
conveys the impression that the majority have taken a major step 
towards protecting Social Security. In truth, they have done nothing to 
strengthen Social Security. Their budget would not provide one 
additional dollar to pay benefits to future retirees, nor would it 
extend the life of the trust fund by even one day. It merely recommits 
to Social Security those dollars which already belong to the Trust Fund 
under current law. That is all their so-called ``lockbox'' does.
  By contrast, President Clinton's proposed budget would contribute 2.8 
trillion new dollars of the budget surplus to Social Security over the 
next 15 years. By doing so, his budget would extend the life of the 
trust fund by more than a generation--to beyond 2050.
  Not only does the Republican plan fail to provide the new revenue to 
extend the life of the Social Security trust fund, it does not even 
effectively guarantee that the existing payroll tax revenue will be 
used to pay Social Security benefits. In essence, there is a trapdoor 
in the Republican lockbox. Their plan would allow Social Security 
payroll taxes to be used to finance unspecified ``reforms''. This 
loophole opens the door to schemes to privatize Social Security by 
turning it over to the tender mercy of the private insurance industry. 
Such a privatization plan could actually make Social Security's 
financial picture far worse than it is today, necessitating deep 
benefit cuts.
  A genuine ``lockbox'' would prevent any such diversion of funds. A 
genuine ``lockbox'' would guarantee that those payroll tax dollars 
would be used to protect Social Security, not undermine it.
  While the Republicans claim that they, too, support using the surplus 
for debt reduction, they are still unwilling to use it in a way that 
will help save Social Security for future generations. There is a 
fundamental difference between the parties on how the savings

[[Page S3033]]

which will result from debt reduction should be used. The Federal 
Government will realize enormous savings from paying down the debt. As 
a result, billions of dollars which would have been required to pay 
interest on the national debt will become available each year for other 
purposes. President Clinton believes those debt savings should be used 
to strengthen Social Security. I wholeheartedly agree. But the 
Republicans refuse to commit those dollars to Social Security. Their 
budget does nothing to increase Social Security's ability to pay full 
benefits to future generations of retirees. Again, they are short-
changing Social Security while pretending to save it.
  Currently, the Federal Government spends more than 11 cents of every 
budget dollar to pay the cost of interest on the national debt. By 
using the Social Security surplus to pay down the debt over the next 15 
years, we can reduce the debt service cost to just 2 cents of every 
budget dollar by the year 2014 and to zero by 2018. Such prudent fiscal 
management now will produce an enormous savings to the Government in 
future years. Since it is payroll tax revenues which made the debt 
reduction possible, those savings should, in turn, be used to 
strengthen Social Security when it needs additional revenue to finance 
the baby boomers' retirement.
  Rather than paying interest to bond-holding investors today, our plan 
would use that money to finance Social Security benefits tomorrow. This 
is analogous to the situation of a couple with young children and a 
mortgage. They know they will have a major expense 15 years down the 
road when their children reach college age. They use their extra money 
now to pay down their home mortgage ahead of schedule. As a result, in 
15 years the mortgage will be greatly reduced or even paid off. Thus, 
the dollars that were going to pay the mortgage each month will be 
available to finance college for their children. In the same way the 
Federal Government is reducing its debt over the next 15 years so that 
it can apply the savings to Social Security in the future.
  That is what the President's budget proposes. It would provide an 
additional $2.8 trillion to Social Security, most of it in debt service 
savings, between 2030 and 2055. As a result, the current level of 
Social Security benefits would be fully financed for all future 
recipients for more than half a century. It is an eminently reasonable 
plan, but Republican Members of Congress oppose it.
  The budget Republicans have brought to the floor does not provide one 
new dollar to finance Social Security benefits. What it does provide is 
nearly 800 billion new dollars for tax cuts over the next decade. Tax 
cuts, not strengthening Social Security, is their first priority. 
Budgets speak louder than words. The actual Republican budget tells us 
much more candidly than their rhetoric about the GOP's goal of tax cuts 
at the expense of Social Security.
  Mr. President, in addition to claims of extending the solvency of the 
Social Security trust fund, this budget would prevent the President's 
proposed transfer of surplus funds to protect important programs for 
future generations. The Republican budget claims that it will set aside 
money for Medicare, but in reality it squanders those funds to pay for 
a tax cut. This is unacceptable. Even worse is the Republican attempt 
to privatize Medicare--or use the crisis in Medicare financing that 
their budget will create as an excuse to promote their extreme agenda 
of slashing Medicare benefits and turning over the program to private 
insurance companies.
  This is the same agenda that Republicans pursued unsuccessfully in 
1995 and 1996, and it was the agenda rejected by President Clinton and 
Democrats in Congress and the American people. But now our Republican 
friends are at it again.

  According to the most recent projections of the Medicare Trustees, if 
we do nothing else, keeping Medicare solvent for the next 25 years will 
require benefit cuts of almost 20 percent--massive cuts of hundreds of 
billions of dollars. The President's plan makes up that shortfall, 
without any benefit cuts, by investing 15 percent of the surplus in the 
Trust Fund. This investment avoids the need for any benefit cuts for at 
least the next 21 years. It also gives us time to develop policies that 
can reduce Medicare costs without also reducing the health care that 
the elderly need and deserve.
  But Republicans in Congress have a different agenda. They want to use 
the surplus to grant undeserved tax breaks to the wealthiest 
Americans--and then use the Medicare shortfall as an excuse to slash 
the program and turn it over to private insurance companies.
  Republicans on the Budget Committee had a clear opportunity to 
preserve, protect and improve Medicare. All they had to do was to adopt 
the President's proposal for investing 15% of the surplus in Medicare. 
Instead of protecting Medicare, they use the surplus to pay for 
billions of dollars in new tax breaks for the wealthy. You don't need a 
degree in higher mathematics to understand what is going on here.
  Because the Republican budget does nothing to preserve and protect 
Medicare, their proposals add up to billions of dollars in Medicare 
cuts.
  Every senior citizen knows--and their children and grandchildren 
know, too--that the elderly cannot afford cuts in Medicare. They are 
already stretched to the limit--and sometimes beyond the limit--to 
purchase the health care they need today. Because of gaps in Medicare 
and high health care costs, Medicare now covers only about 50% of the 
health care costs of senior citizens. On average, senior citizens spend 
19% of their limited incomes to purchase the health care they need--
almost as large a proportion as they had to pay before Medicare was 
enacted a generation ago. Many senior citizens have to pay even more as 
a proportion of their income. By 2025, if we do nothing, that 
proportion will have risen to 29%. Too often, even with today's 
Medicare benefits, the elderly have to choose between putting food on 
the table, paying the rent, or purchasing the health care they need.
  The typical Medicare beneficiary is a single woman, seventy-six years 
old, living alone, with an annual income of approximately $10,000. She 
has one or more chronic illnesses. She is a mother and a grandmother. 
These are the women whose benefits Republicans want to cut to pay for 
new tax breaks for the wealthy. These are the women who will be unable 
to see a doctor, or will go without needed prescription drugs, or who 
will go without meals or heat, so that wealthy Americans earning 
hundreds of thousands of dollars a year can have additional thousands 
of dollars a year in tax breaks.
  This is the wrong priority--and Americans know it is the wrong 
priority, even if Republicans in Congress do not.
  We all recall that four years ago, Republicans in Congress also tried 
to cut Medicare to pay for new tax breaks for the wealthy. They sought 
to cut Medicare by $270 billion to pay for $240 billion worth of tax 
cuts for the wealthiest individuals and corporations. Under their 
proposals, senior citizens would have seen their premiums skyrocket--an 
additional $2,400 for senior couples over the budget period. The 
deductible that senior citizens pay to see a physician would have 
doubled. The Medicare eligibility age would have been raised to 67. 
Protections against extra billing by doctors would have been rolled 
back. Under the guise of preserving Medicare, Republicans also proposed 
to turn the program over to private insurance companies, and force 
senior citizens to give up their family doctors and join HMOs. But 
President Clinton and Democrats in Congress stood firm against these 
regressive proposals, and they were not enacted into law.
  Now, Republicans on the Finance Committee and House Ways and Means 
Committee are at it again. They are already drafting new Medicare 
``reform'' plans. No details have been revealed. But the funds already 
earmarked for tax breaks for the wealthy under the Republican budget 
proposal means that there is no alternative to the harsh cuts in 
Medicare. No wonder so many senior citizens believe that G.O.P. stands 
for ``Get Old People.'' The Republican elephant never learns.
  As we debate these issues this week, the Republican response is 
predictable. They will deny that they have any plans to cut Medicare. 
But the American people will not be fooled. They know that the 
President's plan will put Medicare on a sound financial footing for the 
next two decades--without benefit cuts, without tax increases, and

[[Page S3034]]

without raising the retirement age. They also know that the Republican 
plan will take the surplus intended for Medicare and squander it on new 
tax breaks for the wealthy. They know that the Republican plan for 
Medicare is benefit cuts and additional burdens on the elderly, not the 
honest protection our senior citizens deserve.
  This week, Democrats will offer amendments to assure that this year's 
budget protects Medicare, rather than destroying it. Under our 
proposals, all of the funds the President has proposed to devote to 
Medicare will be put into the Medicare Trust Fund. Our amendments will 
assure that Medicare will be solvent for the next 21 years, without 
benefit cuts or tax increases or raising the retirement age. 
Republicans will have a chance to vote on whether they are sincere 
about protecting Medicare--and the vote on our amendments will test 
whether they care more about senior citizens or the wealthy.
  The choice is clear. The Congress must act to preserve the benefits 
that senior citizens have earned, instead of granting new tax breaks 
for the wealthiest Americans.
  Just as important as preserving and protecting Medicare is improving 
it. And the most important single step we can take to improve Medicare 
is to provide prescription drug coverage for senior citizens. Medicare 
is a compact between workers and their government that says, ``Work 
hard, pay into the system when you are young, and Medicare will provide 
health security in your retirement years.'' But that commitment is 
being broken every day, because Medicare does not cover prescription 
drugs.
  When Medicare was enacted in 1964, coverage of prescription drugs by 
private insurance was not the norm--and Medicare followed the standard 
practice in the private insurance market. Today, ninety-nine percent of 
employment-based health insurance policies provide prescription drug 
coverage--but Medicare does not. Medicare is caught in a 35 year old 
time warp--and too many senior citizens are suffering as a result.
  Too many seniors take half the pills their doctor prescribes, or 
don't fill needed prescriptions--because they simply cannot afford the 
high cost of prescription drugs. In 1983, before the most recent surge 
in drug costs, one in eight senior citizens said they sometimes had to 
choose between prescription drugs and food on the table. Too many 
elderly Americans are paying twice as much as they should for the drugs 
they need, because they are forced to pay the full price, while other 
Americans pay less because their health plans grant discounts.
  As a result, too many senior citizens are ending up hospitalized--at 
immense cost to Medicare--because they are not receiving the drugs they 
need or are not taking them correctly. As we enter the new century, 
pharmaceutical products are increasingly the source of miracle cures 
for more and more diseases--but senior citizens will be left out and 
left behind if we do not act.
  The 21st century may well be the century of life sciences. With the 
support of the American people, Congress is on its way to the goal of 
doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health to support 
additional basic research, so that scientists can develop new therapies 
to improve and extend the lives of senior citizens and all citizens.
  These miracle drugs save lives--and they save dollars too, by 
preventing unnecessary hospitalization and expensive surgery. All 
patients deserve affordable access to these medications. Yet, Medicare, 
the nation's largest insurer, does not cover out-patient prescription 
drugs, and senior citizens and persons with disabilities pay a heavy 
price for this glaring omission.
  Up to 19 million Medicare beneficiaries are forced to fend for 
themselves when it comes to purchasing these life-saving and life-
improving therapies. They have no prescription drug coverage from any 
source. Other Medicare beneficiaries have some coverage, but too often 
it is inadequate, unreliable and unaffordable.
  Prescription drugs are the single largest out-of-pocket cost to the 
elderly for health services. The average senior citizen fills an 
average of eighteen prescriptions a year, and takes four to six 
prescriptions daily. Many elderly Americans face monthly drug bills of 
$100 to $200 or more. Some of the newer drugs that can produce 
miraculous results for those who can afford them cost $10,000 a year or 
more.
  Misuse of prescription drugs results in preventable illnesses that 
cost Medicare an estimated $16-$20 billion annually, while imposing 
vast misery on senior citizens. What are needed are effective ways to 
encourage proper use. Large savings to Medicare will result if 
physicians, pharmacists and senior citizens are better educated about 
identifying, correcting, and preventing these problems.
  Too often, elderly Americans skimp on their medicine--they take half 
doses or otherwise try to stretch their prescription and to make it 
last longer. This is not right. And it doesn't have to happen. If the 
prescription drugs they need are covered by Medicare, needless 
hospitalizations will be avoided and physician visits will be reduced.
  The Senate Budget Committee recognized the need for prescription drug 
coverage by adopting a reserve fund for this coverage. But the 
Committee reserve fund is hedged with unacceptable conditions that 
could retard rather than enhance the cause of ensuring a meaningful 
drug benefit. The Congress can do better--and it must.
  The provision in the budget resolution does not actually provide 
funds for a prescription drug benefit. Instead, it allows a 
prescription drug benefit to be enacted if certain conditions are met, 
but those conditions are far too limited.
  Senior citizens need a drug benefit more than the wealthy need new 
tax breaks. Every senior citizen understands that--and so do their 
children and grandchildren.
  Finally, it is vital that we continue to make investments in 
education programs that serve Americans of all ages. The Republican 
budget claims it will improve education. In reality, it slashes funds 
for critical programs like Head Start, job training, and student aid to 
pay for increases in education. It is vital that we continue to make 
investments in education programs which serve Americans of all ages. 
The Nation's children and families deserve the opportunity for a good 
education throughout their lives.
  Student performance is rising across the nation by many indicators. 
The federal-state-local partnership is working--we shouldn't do 
anything to undermine it. Instead, we should do more to accelerate 
positive change.
  Student achievement is improving. Performance on the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress has increased, particularly in 
reading, math, and science--critical subjects for success in learning. 
Average reading scores increased from 1994 to 1998 in 4th, 8th, and 
12th grades. U.S. students scored near the top on the latest 
international assessment of reading, with 4th graders outperforming 
students from all other nations except Finland. Average performance in 
math has improved since 1978, with the largest gains made by 9-year-
olds. Between 1992 and 1997, the combined verbal and math scores on the 
SAT increased by 15 points.
  Students are taking more rigorous subjects than ever--and doing 
better in them. The proportion of high school graduates taking the core 
courses recommended in the 1983 report, A Nation At Risk, had increased 
to 52 percent by 1994, up from 14 percent in 1982 and 40 percent in 
1990. Since 1982, the percentage of graduates taking biology, 
chemistry, and physics has doubled, rising from 10 percent in 1982 to 
21 percent in 1994. With increased participation in advanced placement 
courses, the number of students who scored at the highest levels on AP 
exams has risen nearly five-fold since 1982, from 132,000 in 1982 to 
636,000 in 1998.

  But too many students in too many schools in too many communities 
across the country fail to achieve that standard. More children need to 
come to school ready to learn. More children need modern schools with 
world-class teachers. More students need opportunities for after-school 
programs. And more qualified students should be able to afford to go to 
college.
  The Republican budget proposal is a welcome improvement over past 
years. Previous Republican plans drastically cut funding for education. 
In one of their first acts as the majority party in 1995, Republicans 
rescinded education funding by $1.7 billion and proposed to abolish the 
Department of Education.

[[Page S3035]]

In subsequent years, they proposed to cut education by $3.9 billion and 
$3.1 billion. With the strong leadership of President Clinton, these 
cuts were never enacted, and Federal funding for education has steadily 
increased.
  Republicans have finally begun to listen to the American people on 
education. The Senate Republican FY2000 Budget Resolution increases 
funding for elementary and secondary education by $2.6 billion over a 
freeze. But that increase in elementary and secondary education comes 
at an unacceptable and irresponsible cost. The Republicans proposed a 
reasonable increase in funding for elementary and secondary education, 
but at the same time they cut funding for critical programs like Head 
Start, job training, and aid for college students by at least 10 
percent in FY2000 and by more than 20 percent in FY2004.
  It is wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul, and it is wrong for the 
Republicans to propose this irresponsible budget.
  It is irresponsible to increase funding for elementary and secondary 
education programs in order to improve the Nation's public schools and 
slash funding that helps young children and college students.
  It is irresponsible to deny 100,000 children Head Start services that 
help them to come to school ready to learn.
  It is irresponsible to eliminate 73,000 summer jobs and training 
opportunities for low-income young people.
  It is irresponsible to jeopardize funding that helps make college 
more accessible and affordable for all qualified students.
  It is irresponsible to ignore the needs of communities that need help 
in modernizing their school buildings. Schools across the nation face 
serious problems of overcrowding. Antiquated facilities are suffering 
from physical decay, and are not equipped to handle the needs of modern 
education. Across the country, 14 million children in a third of the 
nation's schools are learning in substandard buildings. Half the 
schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. It 
will take over $100 billion just to repair existing facilities 
nationwide.
  It is irresponsible to do nothing to see that key education 
priorities will be met, such as reducing class size, improving teacher 
recruitment and training, expanding after-school programs, and ensuring 
strong accountability for how federal education dollars are spent.
  Mr. President, a nation's budget is a reflection of its priorities. 
The nation's children and families deserve a budget that invests in 
their priorities--not the priorities of the right wing. Clearly, this 
Republican budget contains the wrong priorities for the nation's 
future. It gives priority to large tax cuts for the wealthy, instead of 
saving Social Security and Medicare, and at the expense of programs for 
college students, young children, and young adults. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this misguided budget.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina 
is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed in morning business for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for 20 minutes following the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________