May 4, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6135 

but will bear a Social Security tax burden of roughly $2,140. Now, this family 

is then eligible to receive some $2,400 

from the earned income tax credit, 

nearly $260 more than its entire tax 

burden. 

A family earning $28,000 a year—and 

not eligible for the earned income tax 

credit—would have 57 percent of its income tax bill and 17 percent of its total 

Federal tax bill erased by the $500 per 

child tax credit. 

This is an important part of tax relief to these families that do not qualify but still make under $35,000 a year. 

Family tax relief, I believe, should 

not be means tested. Every working 

family in this country is overtaxed, 

thus every working family, regardless 

of income, should be eligible for a $500 

per child tax credit. The Tax Code 

should not penalize children simply because of their parents’ income. 

Now, along with family tax relief, the 

Minnesotans with whom I met during 

the past recess are demanding a balanced Federal budget with or without a 

balanced budget amendment. And if 

that means putting the Federal Government on a strict low-fat diet, then 

so be it. 

One thing I heard over and over again 

during my town meetings, from Minnesotans who pay their own bills and 

balance their own budget, is that if 

they can do it, then the Federal Government can do it as well. 

One thing is very clear: The budget 

can be balanced, and we can do it without gutting the vital programs on 

which millions of Americans depend. 

We will do it by containing the growth 

of Government while continuing to 

meet the needs of America’s families, 

children, and senior citizens. 

By streamlining Federal bureaucracy 

and sending the money back to the 

State governments in the form of block 

grants, Minnesotans know that they 

will have more power, not less power, 

more resources, not fewer, and new and 

better opportunities. 

I have every confidence that the people of Minnesota can direct those resources and provide for those in need 

better than Washington bureaucrats 

could ever hope to do. 

That is my motivation as we move 

forward during these next 100 days, and 

it is my hope that every Senator remembers the messages that they have 

heard over the recess and join in the effort to enact what we call the people’s 

agenda. 

We need to restrict or restrain the 

growth of spending in the Federal Government, but we also need tax relief for 

Minnesota families and for the Nation’s families. We cannot have one 

without the other. I hope very strongly 

that as we move forward in these next 

100 days we will be able to provide 

some of this long sought tax relief for 

middle-class American families. 

I thank the Chair. I would now like 

to turn the floor over to my colleague, 

the Senator from Missouri [Mr. 

ASHCROFT]. 

Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

FAIRCLOTH). The Senator from Missouri. 

The first half hour of time which was 

reserved has expired, so the Senator 

has up to 5 minutes. 

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I 

would ask unanimous consent that I 

can speak as if in morning business for 

up to 10 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER 

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I 

would like to take this opportunity to 

extend my appreciation to citizens all 

across America who are recognizing 

the observation of the National Day of 

Prayer. It is a time during which the 

people of America pray for this country 

and pray for those of us who have the 

responsibility to lead, not just at the 

national level, but at the local level as 

well. So in city halls across America, 

in State capitals, and here in the Nation’s Capital, individuals are seeking 

to invoke the presence of God upon the 

deliberations of the Government, and 

upon the Nation as a whole. 

I am especially grateful for this fitting activity and for the fact that as a 

nation we occasionally stop to remember the Almighty. In particular, I am 

pleased to express appreciation on behalf of myself and many others to Shirley Dobson who is leading the National 

Day of Prayer this year. 

As our Nation heals from the wounds 

inflicted upon us by the Oklahoma City 

tragedy, and as we continue to confront daily the tragedies of death and 

violence that seem to plague our land, 

it is fitting we would call upon God to 

give thanks for the blessings we have 

enjoyed. 

The Old Testament book of Chronicles provides a worthwhile guide to 

our times. It says: ‘‘If my people, which 

are called by my name, shall humble 

themselves and pray and seek my face 

and turn from their wicked ways, then 

will I hear from Heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.’’

Mr. President, I do not think there is a 

more noble aspiration than the desire 

of America to be a land of healing. 

Our Nation has embodied this attitude of humility and reverence before 

God from the very earliest days of its 

existence. During the Constitutional 

Convention, Benjamin Franklin rose to 

say: ‘‘If a sparrow cannot fall to the 

ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without 

his aid?’’

There is little question but that we 

owe a debt of gratitude to Almighty 

God for the blessings he has continued 

to bestow upon us. As George Washington prayed: ‘‘Almighty God; we 

make our earnest prayer that Thou 

wilt * * * most graciously be pleased to 

dispose us all to do justice, to love 

mercy, and to demean ourselves with 

* * * charity, humility and a pacific 

temper of mind.’’

I believe those are the kinds of sentiments we all ought to be expressing 

today. I pray God’s blessing upon this 

land, and I thank those who are assembling across the country to remember 

our need for guidance. 

f 

A BALANCED BUDGET 

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I 

want to address the issue of a balanced 

budget, but I want to start by talking 

about the shifting balance of FederalState power. Last week, in United 

States versus Lopez, the Supreme 

Court held that a 1990 Federal statute 

did not ‘‘substantially affect’’ interstate commerce. While the decision did 

not overturn any precedents, it marked 

a sharp departure from the modern 

Court’s expansive view of congressional 

power to regulate commerce. By limiting Congress’ ability to use the commerce clause to legislate social policy, 

the Court highlighted the benefits of 

the Federal system envisioned by the 

Framers, and outlined in the Constitution. Moreover, they acknowledged 

what the American people have recognized for quite some time: That a Congress with the power to do everything 

for you, also has the power to take everything from you. 

In the Senate, we have just begun to 

discuss spending priorities for the coming fiscal year. When the budget resolution comes before this Chamber, our 

actions will help shape the ongoing debate over State power within the Federal system. 

The question we must ask is not 

what power the Federal Government 

ought to have, but what powers have 

been extended by the people. We must 

be ever mindful of the fact that the 

powers conferred upon the Federal 

Government by the Constitution have 

proscribed limits. Clearly, a National 

Government that has a debt of $4.9 trillion—that is over $18,000 for every man, 

woman, and child—has forgotten this 

fact. 

Mr. President, if efforts are not made 

to limit spending, the Federal Government will no longer be able to fulfill its 

most basic constitutional obligations. 

In just 17 years, spending on entitlement and the national debt will consume all tax revenues; Medicare will be 

bankrupt in just 6 years; and in FY 

1997, we will pay more in interest payments on the national debt than we 

will spend on national defense. 

Last November, the American people 

spoke with a clarity and an intensity 

seldom heard in American government. 

What was their message? Return to us 

the ability to control our own lives, 

our own future, our own destinies. This 

was not some radical, foreign concept, 

it was the message of the founding—

the message embodied in the capstone 

of the Bill of Rights, the 10th amendment, which reads: ‘‘The powers not 

delegated to the United States by the 

Constitution, nor prohibited by it to 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6136 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 4, 1995 

the States, are reserved to the States 

respectively, or to the people.’’ I would 

posit, Mr. President, that this fundamental idea should animate all that we 

do here in the coming weeks. 

The task of defining the constitutional line between Federal and State 

power has given rise to many of the 

Court’s most challenging and celebrated cases. In United States versus 

Lopez, the Court reaffirmed the belief 

that the powers of the Federal Government have proscribed limits. Now, it is 

the opportunity of this Congress to 

recreate the dual sovereignty that the 

Framers envisioned. For ‘‘in the tension between Federal and State power 

lies the promise of liberty.’’

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I 

ask my colleague from California if she 

has come to the floor to speak on budget and Medicare. She was here first. I 

will be pleased to follow her. 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank 

my friend, but I will be delighted to 

follow my friend. So if he would like 

his time now, that is just fine. 

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that I yield 

myself such time as I might need from 

the majority leader’s time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MEDICARE 

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. 

Mr. President, we are, in a very short 

period of time, going to have a historic 

debate about the budget and about priorities in our Nation, the United States 

of America. Part of that debate—and I 

know my colleague from California 

will be speaking to this as well—will 

focus on Medicare. 

As I have followed over the last couple of days some of the press conferences and some of the discussions 

taking place about Medicare, I think it 

is really important to come to the floor 

and speak about Medicare, not so much 

in political terms but in substantive 

terms. 

We are faced with a real irony. It 

may very well be that a good many of 

my colleagues will now discover that 

health care reform—not just a focus on 

Medicare or Medicaid but real health 

care reform—is a pressing, compelling 

issue in this country. 

First of all, Medicare is a benefit program. It is not just an actuarial program. It is important for me to make 

this point, Mr. President. My mother 

and father are no longer alive. Both actually had Parkinson’s disease, but I 

can tell you, for my parents in their 

older age, Medicare, imperfections and 

all, was extremely important and it 

continues to be extremely important to 

senior citizens in this country. 

It is not by any means perfect. It 

does not cover catastrophic expenses, 

it does not cover prescription drug 

costs, and elderly people over 65 years 

of age pay four times as much out of 

pocket as citizens under 65 years of 

age. But I think this focus on the budget is going to get us to the point where 

all of us understand some realities 

about health care and health care policy in the United States. 

Eighty-five percent of Medicare expenditures pay for care for seniors with 

household incomes of less than $25,000 a 

year. So let us also understand that 

these benefits help hard-pressed people, 

not people who have plenty of income 

on their own. 

Second point, Mr. President. I was on 

the floor the other day in a debate with 

one of my colleagues—I think it was 

the Senator from Texas, Senator 

GRAMM—and he was talking about his 

efforts to block health care reform in 

the last Congress and he was proud of 

that. In another point in time, we will 

have a debate, and I do not have a practice of debating colleagues when they 

are not on the floor, but I will say, as 

a matter of fact, one of the reasons 

that we are now dealing with the whole 

question of Medicare and how to finance Medicare is because we did not 

pass any comprehensive health care reform last Congress. 

Mr. President, 89 percent of the 

growth in Medicare spending since 1980 

has been due to medical inflation, general inflation, and changes in enrollment. Let me go over those. 

Medicare is a benefit program that, 

of course, we have to finance. It is part 

of what we are about as a country. It 

is, indeed, a contract with senior citizens, and as we move into the next century, a larger percentage of our population are older Americans, and a larger percentage of those older Americans 

are older. That means that the cost of 

the program goes up. 

Then there is the issue of general inflation. There is not much we can do 

about the first issue that I mentioned. 

And there is not that much we can do 

about general inflation, but we can 

look at medical inflation. 

The interesting thing is that the 

Congressional Budget Office made it 

clear last Congress—I did not say Democrat, Republican, but CBO—that there 

are two ways you can contain medical 

costs. One is through global spending 

caps, as in the single payer proposal, 

or, if you do not prefer that, by placing 

some limits on insurance premiums. 

Some limit on insurance premiums is a 

very effective way of containing costs. 

But, Mr. President, if you just focus 

on one segment of the population and 

you cut $250 to $350 billion between now 

and the year 2002, you will have a severe impact on that population. Let me 

say to my colleagues, when you were 

talking about rationing last Congress 

when we were talking about comprehensive health care reform, when 

you were yelling and screaming about 

rationing last Congress, I did not think 

that you had a case to make. But if you 

are just going to target Medicare, if 

you are going to cut expenditures for 

just one segment of the population, 

then you will ration by age, you will 

ration by disability, and if you throw 

Medicaid into the equation, you will 

ration by income. But now I do not 

hear my colleagues talking about rationing at all. 

Second of all, if you make these cuts 

in Medicare, you are going to throw 

this whole health care system into—

and I do not want to exaggerate—I 

would say a fair amount of chaos, if 

not utter chaos. 

I ask unanimous consent to have 

printed in the RECORD a statement 

from the National Leadership Coalition 

for Health Care Reform, which includes 

many businesses in this case. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

THE NATIONAL LEADERSHIP

COALITION FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM, 

Washington, DC, April 3, 1995. 

Senator PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE, 

Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR WELLSTONE: We are writing 

to express our serious concerns about the 

proposed cuts in the Medicare and Medicaid 

programs. Our Coalition is the nation’s largest nonpartisan alliance of business, labor, 

consumers, and providers dedicated to improving the health care system—in order to 

enhance the availability, affordability, and 

quality of care. (Our membership list is attached.) 

We have long been on record as strong supporters of cost containment for both public 

and private payers. Until we contain costs, 

our citizens cannot be secure in coverage for 

themselves and their families. However, we 

believe that further drastic cuts in Medicare 

and Medicaid, coming on top of deep cuts 

legislated in 1993, would pose program difficulties and force the provider community 

to increase the shifting of costs to the private sector. Such cost-shifting would result 

in even more limited access, especially for 

low and middle-income Americans, and an 

increase in the number of uninsured. 

We are troubled by approaches that focus 

primarily on cutting the price of services. 

One of our central concerns—as patients, 

payers, and providers—is that the quality of 

care be enhanced by changes in the health 

care system. If draconian cuts are made in 

prices, quality could further suffer. We urge 

a balanced approach, one that would control 

total system cost while improving quality, 

stopping cost-shifting, and expanding universal coverage. 

We believe that if our nation were to concentrate on better outcomes and quality initiatives in addition to measures targeted on 

costs, there would be significant gains both 

in the appropriateness and efficiency of services, and in the reduction of costs. Strong 

quality assurance mechanisms are also essential as we shift more to better systems of 

managed care. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS