[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1731-1732]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   BUDGET PRIORITIES AND MORAL VALUES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Bush delivered to 
this Congress his proposed Federal budget. In the coming months, 
Democrats and Republicans in Congress will debate budget proposals 
largely based on divergent cardinal moral values. We will debate budget 
cuts that represent more than just program additions or scale-backs.
  The President's proposed cuts to vital government programs are 
reflective of differences in moral core philosophies on the role of our 
government in serving our people. Budgets are moral documents that 
reveal fundamental priorities of a person, of a household, of a 
community, of a business, of a government.

[[Page 1732]]

  There is no better example of where Democratic and Republican values 
diverge than on Medicaid. The President claims he only wants to cut 
programs that are either not getting results or that duplicate current 
efforts or that do not fulfill essential priorities.
  As Democrats, we could not agree more on the need for efficient 
government. That was how we balanced the budget in the 1990s. But which 
of those three criteria does the President mean when he talks about 
Medicaid?
  There is no question Medicaid gets results. In spite of what my 
friends on the other side of the aisle like to demagogue, it operates 
at a lower cost than private health insurance. Private health insurance 
has in the last few years grown at 12.7 percent; Medicare has grown at 
7.1 percent.
  Medicaid costs have grown at only 4.5 percent a year. There is no 
duplication in Medicaid. It is the only program of its kind. It 
fullfills an essential priority. It is the sole source of nursing home 
care for 5 million senior citizens in our country who are living in 
poverty.
  The President knows Medicaid is already running on fumes, but he made 
a choice. He chose to give more tax cuts to the most affluent 1 percent 
of Americans rather than provide subsistence care for senior citizens. 
That is the choice he made, different priorities reflecting a different 
set of moral values.
  Medicaid provides health coverage to 52 million Americans, 1.7 
million in my State of Ohio alone. It is the only source of coverage 
for one out of four Ohio children. It provides 70 percent of nursing 
home funding in my State of Ohio.
  Think about divergent moral values, what we stand for, in our 
government, in our homes and our families and in our communities. The 
Bush proposal cuts $60 billion, billion with a ``b'', $60 billion out 
of Medicaid over the next 10 years. Ask hospitals, ask health care 
experts, ask senior groups, these cuts will mean kicking seniors out of 
nursing homes. We have a moral obligation to prevent that from 
happening.
  The President's plan shifts tens of millions of dollars of costs to 
States, like Ohio, already facing severe financial shortfalls.
  The President cannot eliminate basic needs by ignoring them. He 
cannot eliminate the nursing home care for seniors by ignoring nursing 
home care or by shifting responsibility to the States which simply 
cannot afford it. In the short run, his budget cuts will create 
victims. In the long run, it will force the State to spend more.
  And how will that happen? How will the States be able to take care of 
this? Students will have to pay higher tuition. Homeowners will have to 
pay higher property tax. Consumers will have to pay higher sales tax. 
Workers will have to pay higher income tax to make up for the cuts in 
Medicaid and to make up for the President's huge tax cuts for the 
wealthiest, most privileged 1 percent.
  Medicaid is a partnership between the Federal and State government. 
Cutting the Federal share hurts our families, hurts our schools, hurts 
our communities, hurts our States.
  We can give up, Mr. Speaker, many things in the name of shared 
sacrifice, as we should, but common sense should not be one of those 
things we give up. The President's every-man-for-himself budget 
neglects our communities and betrays our moral values as a nation.

                          ____________________