[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 2333]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

  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, last week, President Bush delivered 
to 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 scale-backs. The President's 
proposed cuts to vital government programs are reflective of 
differences in core philosophies on the role of our government in 
serving our people.
  Budgets are moral documents that reveal the fundamental priorities of 
a person, of a household, of a government. The President's ``every man 
for himself'' budget disregards millions of Americans and undercuts our 
Nation's values. There is no better example of where Democratic and 
Republican values diverge than Medicaid. The President claims he only 
wants to cut programs that are not getting results or that duplicate 
current efforts or that do not fulfill essential priorities.
  So which of these is Medicaid? There is no question it is getting 
results. It operates at a lower cost than private health insurance, in 
spite of what my friends on the other side of the aisle like to say 
about Medicaid. In fact, private health insurance has grown 
historically at 12.6 percent a year; Medicare costs have grown at 7.1 
percent a year; and Medicaid has grown at 4.5 percent a year. So 
government-delivered health care through Medicare and through Medicaid 
has been significantly more efficient than wasteful, profitable private 
insurance.
  There is no duplication here, because Medicaid is the only program of 
its kind. It fulfills an essential priority. It is the sole source of 
nursing home care for five million seniors living in poverty.
  The President knows that Medicaid is already running on fumes, but he 
made a choice. He chose more tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of 
Americans instead of providing for subsistence care for America's 
seniors. He chose tax cuts for the most privileged Americans instead of 
subsistence care for America's seniors through Medicaid. Different 
priorities reflecting a different set of moral values.
  Medicaid provides health coverage to 52 million Americans, including 
roughly 1.7 million in the home State of myself and the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). It is the only source of coverage for one in 
four of Ohio's children. It provides 70 percent of the nursing home 
funding in Ohio, as it does in most States.
  The Bush plan cuts $60 billion out of Medicaid over the next 10 
years. Different priorities reflecting a different set of moral values.
  These cuts mean kicking seniors out of nursing homes. And the 
President's plan, in addition to doing that, shifts tens of billions of 
dollars in costs to States like Ohio. He gives a tax break to the 
wealthiest people in the country, then he shifts costs by cutting 
spending in Ohio and the other 49 States, all of which have to make up 
for that to take care of Medicaid.
  The President cannot eliminate basic needs by ignoring them. He 
cannot eliminate the need for nursing home care by ignoring it or by 
shifting responsibility to the States. In the short run, his budget 
cuts will create victims; in the long run, they will force the States 
to spend more.
  And who will have to cover these costs? Students will pay as a result 
of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and Medicaid cuts. Students in my 
State, and every State, will pay through higher tuition; homeowners 
will pay through higher property taxes; consumers will pay through 
higher sales taxes; workers will pay through higher income taxes, all 
to make up for the President's tax cuts for the wealthy in Washington 
and cuts in Medicaid to the States.
  Medicaid has always been a partnership between Federal and State 
governments. Cutting the Federal share hurts our families and our 
communities and our States and our country. We can give up many things, 
Mr. Speaker, in the name of shared sacrifice, but common sense should 
not be one of them. The President's ``every man for himself'' budget 
neglects our communities and betrays our values as a Nation.

                          ____________________