```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6438-S6443]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S6438]]
        OPPOSING THE ELIMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we now have two budget proposals, one 
from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate. Both claim 
to balance the budget to ensure a better future for our children, to 
provide them with more and better opportunities than we now have. 
Nothing could be further from the truth, if Congress accepts the House 
Republican proposal to abolish the Department of Education.
  You do not turn your back on education in the name of ensuring a 
better future for our children. You do not turn your back on education 
to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. You do not turn your 
back on schoolchildren to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest 
Americans. You do not turn your back on college students to pay for tax 
cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And you do not turn your back on 
working families to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
  Education is critical to the Nation's future. It deserves a seat at 
the Cabinet table and at the President's right hand when critical 
decisions are being made. Children do not vote, children cannot hire 
lobbyists, but a Cabinet officer can fight for them. It is especially 
objectionable that the Department of Education would be abolished in 
order to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest individuals and 
corporations in our country.
  What does the proposal to abolish the Department of Education say 
about Republican priorities? What kind of Nation are we? What kind of 
Congress are we? Last Congress, Republicans and Democrats stood 
together as the Education Congress. Are we now the anti-education 
Congress?
  Last Congress, Democrats and Republicans worked together to reform 
the Head Start Program. Republicans and Democrats worked to bring about 
changes in the chapter 1 program. We worked together to adopt the Goals 
2000 program, the School-to-Work Program, and the direct loan program. 
These programs were all passed with Republicans and Democrats working 
together. It truly was an education Congress.
  Now we have the proposal to eliminate the Department of Education 
which is nothing more than a political stunt. It would save less than 2 
percent of the Federal investment in education. These budget proposals 
will not eliminate bureaucracy in education. What these cuts will do is 
jeopardize billions of dollars in aid to education which go directly to 
schools and colleges and students to give them a greater opportunity to 
learn and to succeed.
  Mr. President, I have a list of the various education programs 
targeted by the House Republican budget for elimination. Outlined in 
these programs are the safe and drug free school State grants and the 
Safe and Drug Free School National Program. These are the programs that 
have been developed to try and help local school districts deal with 
the problems of substance abuse and violence in their schools.
  These programs are all targeted for elimination.
  Also on the list for elimination is assistance for the magnet schools 
which have been developed to try to help the public schools to develop 
magnet concepts to attract the best of the young people in public 
schools, to give them some advantages and different specialties so they 
can advance in their educational competence. That program is 
effectively dropped out.
  The dropout prevention programs, demonstration programs which are 
targeted at some 400,000 young people who drop out of school every 
year. They are the principal cause of violence in our society and the 
principal individuals that have the challenges with teenage pregnancy. 
We have a small program that is having some positive effects, and it is 
targeted to be eliminated.
  The charter school programs. Last year, when we were considering the 
education reforms, how many of our Republican colleagues said what we 
need is break-the-mold public schools, we need to permit the States to 
move ahead with new charter schools? We included charter schools 
funding in our Goals 2000 proposals. A number of different States are 
experimenting with those programs. There are funds in there to help and 
assist local school communities that are trying to develop charter 
schools. Those programs effectively have been emasculated.
  All of the education technology programs. I was listening to my 
friend and colleague, the Senator from Ohio, talking about the 
importance of new technologies to fight crime. We heard important 
testimony today in our Immigration Committee about how we are trying to 
utilize the best in technology to try to bring sanity into the whole 
area of employment and the exploitation of illegal immigrants and deal 
with the problems of the discrimination that exist against Americans in 
employment, using the best of technology. How is it that we are trying 
to do the best in technology when we are trying to deal with 
immigration and we are trying to use the best of technology in talking 
about the problems of crime? Here we have a modest program to try to 
bring the latest technology into the public schools of this country, 
and it is targeted for elimination under the budget recommendations of 
the House.
  In vocational education the tech-prep educational program is the best 
work-based learning program that has been developed in this country by 
the private sector and the public sector working together. It is 
effectively emasculated. It is an effective program. Many of our 
colleagues know about model tech-prep programs that have taken place in 
their States. They are small programs, but they really have the pattern 
for the development of future training programs and partnerships 
between the public and private sectors. They are effectively 
emasculated.
  The efforts we made last year on the School-to-Work Program which had 
bipartisan support, and which Republican Governor Thompson testified on 
before our Human Resource Committee as being an extremely effective 
program in helping to move many of the young people that are not going 
on to 4-year colleges or 2-year colleges or post-high-school education 
and help them gain employment. Sixty-five percent of all the high 
school students that graduate do not go on to advanced education. They 
are the ones who are having the difficulty in getting decent jobs. They 
are the ones who have seen their real income decline over the period of 
the last 15 to 18 years. They are the ones who are losing confidence in 
the whole education system and the democratic process and the free 
enterprise system.
  One of the most innovative and creative programs has been the School-
to-Work Program, which helps move these young people, in a thoughtful 
way, in a way that has the strong support and initiation of the private 
sector, from school right into employment and future job opportunities 
with good and decent job programs. It has broad bipartisan support and 
is supported by Republican Governor Thompson, who was down testifying 
before us, as being one of the creative programs to try to help reach 
those young people that are not going on to college. Nonetheless, it is 
a modest program that was started last year. And that program is 
effectively eliminated.
  Mr. President, I could go on. The Star Schools Program brings 
distance learning into many of the school districts of this country. 
Many of the school districts have had tightening budgets, and they are 
not able to get that science teacher, that language teacher, that 
chemistry teacher, that biology teacher, because of the demographics of 
their particular community have decreased, school budgets have gone 
down. But what we have been able to do with the Star Schools Program is 
to beam into those schools the best educator, the best physics teacher, 
the best history teacher, the best language teacher, for the very 
bright students in those schools who otherwise would be unchallenged in 
terms of their ability to compete in science and other kinds of 
technology, which this Nation needs in such desperate amounts. A modest 
program. It is $30 million, and it is affecting thousands of students, 
not just in urban areas but in rural areas of the country. The program 
MCET, in my part of the country, effectively provides distance learning 
throughout New England. Its greatest supporters are in the rural parts 
of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont--in the rural communities.
   [[Page S6439]] You have an exciting program in South Carolina. I 
have attended programs in Mississippi that have reached out into rural 
areas all through the South that are teaching children foreign 
languages, physics, advanced mathematics, and a number of other 
programs where they do not have those kinds of teachers. It is a modest 
program that depends upon local support, local matching funds, and it 
has been an effective program in every kind of evaluation, and it is 
effectively eliminated and cut.
  So, Mr. President, these are matters which we are going to have to 
have a debate and discussion about when we have the opportunity to 
debate this matter here on the floor of the U.S. Senate later and also 
when that conference report comes out.
  I urge those who are committed to the cause of education to take a 
little time and review in detail the assault on many of the programs 
that have been outlined in the House budget proposal, and a number of 
those which have been included in the Senate proposal. We have seen the 
basic assault on the programs which provide for an interest subsidy 
students while they are in school. That is a program that has been in 
effect, and that program is effectively being eliminated. In my State 
of Massachusetts, 70 percent of the students that go to higher 
education get some form of help, of scholarship help or assistance; 75 
to 78 percent of all the scholarship help and assistance is provided by 
the Federal Government.
  The cuts in school-to-work programs proposed in the Republican budget 
would deny more funds for working families' children in my State of 
Massachusetts than is being provided by the State today. This is not an 
issue where the State is going to pick up the slack. I hope that during 
this debate we will hear from our colleagues in other States and that 
they will tell us what State has been devoting more and more to higher 
education for their children. It is not true in Massachusetts.
  Tuition and fees in public education have increased dramatically. And 
that has been true in almost State in the country. And the people that 
qualify for the student assistance programs are, by definition, the 
sons and daughters of working families. This is a program that has been 
tried and tested and true.
  I applauded the President of the United States when he talked about 
trying to provide at least some tuition deduction for working families, 
up to $10,000, because of the increases in tuition which have taken 
place in this country. I myself believe we ought to consider permitting 
the repayment of interest on student loans to be deductible under the 
Tax Code. Why do we permit the interest that wealthy individuals pay on 
their second homes to be deductible when we will not permit students to 
deduct interest payments on their student loans?
  That says something about national priorities. Instead of moving in a 
direction to try and help and assist the sons and daughters of working 
families, we are moving completely in the opposite direction.
  Mr. President, there are many features of those programs which are 
troublesome. I have mentioned just a few. We are committed to try and 
consolidate various programs. We made some progress last year in the 
areas of education. We are doing so now in the training programs. We 
are working toward those objectives in the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee.
  We welcome the opportunity to do that with our colleagues, to 
eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and the overlapping of various 
programs. I think that makes sense. We welcome the chance to do that.
  But kind of wholesale assault on education programs that has been 
outlined today in the budget by the House of Representatives and the 
significant undermining of student assistance programs in the Senate, I 
find to be troublesome and I hope that when the time comes that we will 
reject those particular areas.
  The Republicans claim that these budgets are to give children a 
better future. Will children have a better future if we revoke our 
commitment to raise education standards? Will children have a better 
future if we slash funds to help them learn to read, write, and do math 
and science? Will children have a better future if we abolish funds to 
modernize all aspects of education, so that we no longer have to 
prepare students for the 21st century in 19th- century classrooms. Will 
children have a better future if the Federal Government slashes $20 
billion from student aid, so that vast numbers of able young men and 
women can no longer afford to go to college? The answer to all these 
questions is no--no, no, no, no.
  The American people agree. Two out of three Americans oppose a 
balanced budget if it means cutting Social Security, Medicare, or 
education. Eighty-nine percent of Americans believe a Federal 
Department of Education is necessary. Sixty-four percent of Americans 
would increase spending on public schools if they had the opportunity 
to write the budget.
  The American people see what our Republican colleagues refuse to see 
in their shortsighted budget proposals. Students, families, and the 
country itself will suffer if we abandon our commitment to education.
  Our Republican colleagues say that they want to balance the budget so 
as not to bury the next generation in debt. Why then are they so 
willing to bury this generation of students in debt?
  The question answers itself. Congress and the Nation should say a 
resounding no to these irresponsible anti-education proposals.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the senior Senator from Massachusetts would 
yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, here is the problem I find: We have a 
terrible deficit of $200 billion which every objective group says will 
rise to over $300 billion and close to $400 billion by the end of the 
century.
  The Republicans have come up with a program that reaches a balanced 
budget not next year, not the year after, but 7 years away, which seems 
to me that would be a reasonable timetable to arrive at a situation 
where we are no longer sending the bills to our children.
  Now, the proposal that has emerged from the Republican Budget 
Committee has many harsh provisions to it. When we are reducing 
expenditures there are going to be difficulties, as we all recognize 
and as the Senator has ably pointed out.
  It affects this, affects that, affects things I am interested in, 
that the Senator is interested in, that the Presiding Officer is 
interested in. There is not one that will not find things we do not 
like.
  The question is, what is the alternative? I do not believe the answer 
is to say stop giving those tax cuts to rich people, because in the 
Domenici budget there are no tax cuts. Never mind the rich people. 
There are no tax cuts at all.
  So he has presented a budget which I know we will all find terribly 
challenging and difficult and dissatisfying. What is the alternative? 
Maybe the answer is to increase taxes. I do not believe that we can 
continue on the path we are, which consists of sending the bills to our 
children. We live high on the hog, and send the bill to our children 
and grandchildren. I think that is immoral.
  If we do not like the proposal, what is a better one? I am not trying 
to put the Senator on the spot.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.
  Mr. CHAFEE. This is a tremendous challenge we all face.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the Senator's question.
  Let me just outline my response very quickly.
  First of all, I fail to understand how we are saving the future 
generations from indebtedness when we are increasing so significantly--
about 25 or 30 percent--the debt of students going on to higher 
education, which is the part I have been talking about.
  Let me answer it in this way. First of all, if the Senator is 
prepared to reject what the majority leader has stated, and that is, 
that his desire to see the set-asides, the savings of $170 billion 
which have been included in the Republican budget in the House and the 
Senate of the United States, that can be used for future tax cuts, if 
we are going to count those in or count those out, do we say that the 
majority leader is for 
 [[Page S6440]] the tax cut and Senator Gramm is for the tax cut?
  I listened to the Senator from Rhode Island indicate that he is not. 
That, I think, is certainly a more responsible position. These cuts are 
coming at a time when one is fair enough to juxtapose what has been 
included in the House budget cuts as well as in the Senate cuts and the 
saving programs.
  To make the judgment that we are cutting back on a number of the 
programs, particularly as I have mentioned here in education, and 
setting aside that $170 billion which can be used for tax cuts.
  Second, there is no review of the fastest growing contributor to the 
size of the deficit, which is our tax expenditures. I indicated during 
the time of the line-item veto, which I supported, that I wanted to see 
the line-item veto go on this for tax expenditures. We are not 
reviewing tax expenditures. There is no similar kind of review by the 
Budget Committee to review the various kinds of subsidies that are out 
there that are going, in many instances, to some of the most successful 
companies and corporations. There is no review by the Budget Committee 
to review those and to find out which ones make sense, which ones do 
not make sense, and to do the same kinds of cuts that we have seen 
illustrated by the kinds of cuts that have taken place in this budget, 
identifying program after program after program after program after 
program that deals with education.
  I think that the Senator's position in terms of fairness and judgment 
and in terms of the budget would be enhanced if he said, ``Let's take a 
look at $460 billion in tax expenditures and review those and find out 
which ones are fair and which ones are not.''
  I think that is a position. Finally, let me say that I do think, and 
I think the Senator would agree with me, we are never going to get at 
the principal contributor to expanding deficits, which is the health 
care issue, and the escalations of health care costs both now in terms 
of medical care which is different from where it was from the mid-
1980's to 1990, but nonetheless has doubled virtually the cost of 
living in terms of where we are for other goods and services.
  We are never going to really deal with that increase by just cutting. 
We are going to have to deal with the escalation of health care costs 
by looking at the total health care system.
  Social Security and Medicaid represent one-quarter of our health care 
expenditures. If we are going to have some kind of a discipline on that 
one-quarter, and we will have cutbacks as being included, then we will 
have a reduction of services without giving some kind of additional 
sense of reform of health care.
  The Senator knows very well that treating people with long-term care 
and in-home care and permitting them to get help and assistance with 
prescription drugs which are outside of a hospital setting, and 
providing for better health care services, that there are many things 
that can be invested. It can have an impact in reducing the pressures 
in terms of the growth of the Medicare population.
  But the idea that we are going to solve the expansion of health care 
costs just by cutting back again on Medicare is something that I find 
troublesome. I wanted to indicate to the Senator that I respect his 
sincere desire to move and support programs that will bring America 
into a closer position on the issues of our deficit, but it does seem 
to me that we should not simply have the harshest cuts in the areas 
that I think are counterproductive, because I would say to my friend 
and colleague, that every dollar we cut back in education we will be 
paying $2 more in terms of social services.
  I think, and particularly with regard to education, that is wrong.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator from Nevada would let me finish.
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I appreciate the suggestions that the Senator from 
Massachusetts made. Tax expenditures--I suppose he is talking about, 
first of all, a whole series of things. Whether we should be providing 
pensions, deductible pensions, or whether we are talking about in the 
tax expenditures, whether he is talking about depreciation. I do not 
find those objectionable. But never mind.
  It seems to me it would behoove everyone to come up with plans. That 
is, if the Senator and the administration do not like the Republican 
proposal for doing something about this balanced budget by the year 
2002, which is a very reasonable goal to reach. We have no wars, times 
are relatively good, inflation is low, unemployment is low, relatively 
low, and this is the time to gun for this balanced budget amendment, 
balanced budget situation.
 But the administration has not done that. It has chosen not to do 
that.

  All right, how about the Democratic Senators doing it themselves? I 
would be interested to see what they come up with, because this is 
very, very difficult. And every step that we take, we being the 
Republicans who have come up with this balanced budget, we are going to 
be attacked. And there are going to be wonderful things to attack us 
on. But at least we are trying to get there.
  I think as a part of a sense of responsibility, if you want to call 
it that, that it would be wise, it would be helpful if others came up 
with their approach. Maybe you can do it better than we can do it. If 
so, three cheers, and let us hear your ideas.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I appreciate his moment of 
challenge.
  I am mindful, though, that this does come from voices that were not 
there when we saw the $70 billion deficit reduction program on the 1993 
budget resolution. We did not have it. That is a historic fact. It is a 
political fact of life, as well. But there was not a single vote that 
came from that side, not one single vote, when we were moving toward at 
least a very modest increase in tax which was presented for the top 1 
to 2 percent of the taxpayers, to provide a very modest increase. We 
did not have any support there. Nor did we have support when we were 
trying to provide the extension of the earned-income tax credit--that 
is 84,000 families in my State who were able to get some benefit, plus 
reduce the overall deficit by $600 million. We had that.
  I have said on other occasions I respect the seriousness with which 
the Senator from Rhode Island approached the efforts to try to deal 
with the health care issue and crisis in a comprehensive way. I am not 
sure the Senator desires, nor do I, to get into a long debate on what 
happened to that particular measure.
  But, nonetheless, dealing in a comprehensive way with the total 
health care issues that included Medicare plus other kinds of 
expenditures was, I think--I thought then and I still do, and I think 
eventually the country will recognize, whether we do it the way that 
was suggested the last time or in some other way--we are never going to 
be serious about getting a handle on health care costs, which is the 
principal contributor in entitlement spending, until we deal with that 
issue. We were not able to break through and develop bipartisan 
support.
  I am not here tonight to get into where the blame lies for that. But 
I do think those of us who supported those positions, and also 
supported at least a line-item veto that included the tax expenditures, 
do not come to this debate empty-handed. We do come to this with a 
recognition that we have attempted to be responsible on this. I, 
frankly, think that is something that ought to be a part of it, as 
well.
  Should the Senator from Rhode Island say, ``OK, we did not do the 
health care last year. We understand we are going to have to deal with 
Medicare this year, and we are prepared to try to work across the line, 
with this President, with the other side of the aisle, to try to get a 
handle on health care costs that are part of health care reform,'' I 
would welcome the opportunity to be the first who comes to the table on 
that issue. I think I speak for many on this side.
  I must say, hope springs eternal in my soul. I think many of us 
understand there is nobody who could put that challenge with greater 
credibility than the Senator from Rhode Island. Perhaps we will wait 
for a little while to hear that challenge go out there where we can sit 
down and really try to come to grips with this issue.
  Mr. REID. Before the Senator yields the floor, I have a question I 
would like to ask the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield for a question.
   [[Page S6441]] Mr. REID. I say to the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts, I recall many of us being on this floor just a few 
months ago, talking about the crisis in health care.
  Does the Senator recall that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I do.
  Mr. REID. In fact, it was not minutes or hours or days; we spent 
weeks on the floor talking about the health care crisis a few months 
ago.
  I am curious; is the crisis suddenly upon us regarding Medicare? The 
fact of the matter is, that same crisis was here last year, when we 
worked weeks and weeks trying to solve the problem; is that not true?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. What stands out even 
in greater relief is the fact that in that debate there were going to 
be adjustments made in the Medicare system but, nonetheless, it was 
going to be part of an overall reform. So the seniors were going to be 
able, hopefully, to not only have a more comprehensive range of 
services available to them, but it would give them the kind of 
protection in the future that the continued escalation of costs for 
them would not provide.
  As the Senator knows full well now, for the average Medicare 
recipient, they are paying about $1 out of $4, $1 out of $5, of every 
dollar for health care. Twenty years ago, it was $1 out of every $12.
  Now, for those in the lower part of the Medicare system, in many 
instances, it is $1 out of $3.
  So there is a need to both have the reform and to use resources for 
health care reform rather than tax cuts.
  Mr. REID. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, the fact of the 
matter is, if there is suddenly a recognition on the other side that 
there is a crisis in Medicare, should we recognize that the crisis is 
not in Medicare, it is in health care? Is that not a fair statement?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has stated it very well.
  Mr. REID. If the health care costs, as they relate to Medicare, are 
escalating 10.7 percent a year, is it not a fact that some private 
systems are going up even more than that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct again.
  Mr. REID. That means higher insurance premiums. Does it not mean that 
people who have no insurance go to an emergency room; and is there any 
higher cost of medical care any place in the country than in an 
emergency room?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct on that. The great 
tragedy in the cost is not only in the dollars and cents, but it is in 
the cost of parents who wonder if that child is $75 or $100 sick before 
they will even go to the emergency room to take care of those needs.
  As the Senator knows, about 45 percent of all needs that are treated 
in the emergency room could have been treated--or are preventable--and 
could have been treated in a much lower-cost setting at a savings of 
not only resources, but also the anxiety primarily of parents and loved 
ones because of the illness or sickness of a member of the family.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Massachusetts leaves 
the floor, I want to say I have been here and I have used as an 
illustration some of the things that are being done on the other side 
of the aisle, as being--well, they remind me some of the things that go 
on in Las Vegas. We have in Las Vegas the greatest magicians, 
illusionists in the world. I talked earlier this week about Siegfried 
and Roy. They can make things happen.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And David Copperfield.
  Mr. REID. I did not talk about him the other day, but we have David 
Copperfield, who spends a lot of time in Las Vegas, who does many 
wonderful things. We have Melinda, who is the Woman of Magic. We also 
have two new magicians who now live in Las Vegas by the names of Penn 
and Teller. The reason the other illusionists are so mad at them is 
because they tell people how they do their tricks.
  I think we need some help from the other side of the aisle to tell us 
how they are doing their tricks because the fact of the matter is, a 
health care crisis has been upon us for a long time. Suddenly, because 
they are presenting a budget to us, they find a health care crisis when 
there has been one here all the time. I think they have been taking 
lessons from some of my friends in Nevada. I think that because our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are really illusionists or 
magicians in the true sense of the word.
  I appreciate the statement the Senator has given regarding education. 
We really have to concentrate on education and what it is doing to 
future generations.
  Mr. KENNEDY. May I just ask the Senator, in the House Budget 
Committee, they actually cut $90 billion, I understand, from Medicare, 
and put it that much more at risk, in order to recapture funds in the 
House budget that can be used for tax reduction. Is the Senator 
familiar with that?
  (Mr. BROWN assumed the chair).
  Mr. REID. I am very familiar with that. I say to my friend that the 
Democrats are not against tax cuts. But I think we have to have our 
priorities in order. Do we take $90 billion away from senior citizens? 
As indicated, $1 out of every $3 they have they have to spend on health 
care. Is that a proper priority that we give tax cuts, $20,000 tax 
cuts, to people making over $350,000 a year? Is that fair, I say to my 
friend?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think the answer is obvious. I think that it is 
important as we move through this debate and the budget that is taking 
place in the House and the Senate that the facts come out about exactly 
what has been cut and who is going to pay for it. I think the Senator 
is providing a real service to the membership here in discussing these 
matters and bringing them to the attention of the membership and to the 
American people. I thank him for his comments.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the budget that we have just received today 
does some interesting things. One thing that it does without any 
dispute--there is no reason to debate this--is that senior citizens on 
an average will spend $900 per year more for health care costs. Every 
year they can expect to lose about $900--in fact, if they can, and most 
of them cannot--they will have to pay that much more money for health 
care costs. As I have said to my friend from Massachusetts, there is no 
crisis today that there was not last December. Suddenly, there is a 
crisis now. Suddenly, they want to start talking about Medicare and not 
talk about the rest of health care costs.
  Mr. President, this year health care costs in America will go up over 
$100 billion. We will not have any better health care as a result of 
that. We have to be concerned about health care generally and not 
Medicare particularly.
  Mr. President, this rhetoric that we have heard and encompassed in 
this budget about Medicare reform is nothing but a smokescreen for tax 
cuts. There is a proposal in this Republican budget that we have for 
tax cuts. It is camouflaged, and says any savings we get we will apply 
to the tax cut. I think any savings we get we should help these senior 
citizens that are having their Medicare bills increased. I think we 
should talk about young people who cannot go to school, or go to 
college. That is where the money should go, not for tax cuts for the 
wealthy.
  We are talking about a $900 a year increase in out-of-pocket health 
care for every senior citizen on Medicare, and we will pay for the 
$20,000 annual tax cut for Americans making $350,000 a year or more. 
When the facts are filtered from this rhetoric, it is not the Medicare 
trust fund they are concerned about at all. It is tax cuts they are 
concerned about.
  As I indicated, Mr. President, we are all for tax cuts. But there has 
to be a prioritization of what is important. Is it more important we 
give tax cuts to people who make a lot of money or that we take money 
away from senior citizens or kids trying to get an education?
  Eighty-three percent of Medicare spending is for senior citizens with 
annual incomes of less than $25,000 a 
 [[Page S6442]] year. Two-thirds is for those with incomes of less than 
$15,000 a year. Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. It does not 
cover long-term care. It does not cover dental care or eye care. I 
think it is time for us to be concerned about improving Medicare rather 
than trashing Medicare.
  We can come up with some savings. Should not those savings be applied 
to maybe taking a look at long-term care, dental care, or eye care? I 
would think so.
  Drastic cuts in Medicare not only threaten the pocketbooks of seniors 
but also those of families. Some seniors may be forced to move in with 
their extended families once the burden of increased premiums, 
copayments, and deductibles become too great, if in fact they are 
fortunate enough to have those extended families. A move would result 
in loss of independence for seniors as well. That is one of the reasons 
that Medicare was such an important thing--that we will make sure that 
we did things to increase the independence of seniors, not take away 
their independence.
  What it all boils down to, Mr. President, is priorities. How do we 
feel about priorities? I believe the most important thing we can be 
engaged in is reducing the deficit. I think it is for a lot of 
different reasons and we need to increase savings. We need to increase 
our balance of trade. We need to make sure that we do not spend more 
than 17 percent a year for interest on the debt. The American public 
has to understand that about 48 percent of what we spend is for 
entitlements. What is the largest part of that? Health care costs--
Medicare and Medicaid. We have to do something about that, not just 
hack away at Medicare but do something about overall health care costs. 
That should not be swept under the rug.
  Last year we debated health care. Perhaps we tried to do too much. 
There were lots of losers in that health care debate; hundreds of 
losers, and only one real winner in the health care debate and that was 
the health insurance industry. They were head and shoulders the winner. 
They got over the finish line way before anybody else got out of the 
starting block. They, through their Harry and Louise ads, set out to 
frighten and confuse the American public, and they hit a home run. They 
frightened and confused the American public beyond, I think, what even 
they hoped.
  When the health care debate started everyone recognized the truth, 
that health care was in trouble. Almost 90 percent of the American 
public favored health care reform. When the debate ended, Mr. 
President, nobody favored health care reform. The health insurance 
lobby won the day. That does not mean that the day is won forever 
because the problems still exist. Health care costs are increasing, and 
they are driving deficits on local governments, State governments, and 
the Federal Government.
  All of this debate about let us give everything back to the States is 
scaring the people in Nevada. Why? Especially the large counties, Clark 
and Washoe Counties get all of leftovers, people that have fallen 
through the safety net. Social services in Washoe County, Clark County, 
Reno, and Las Vegas have to take care of those people that fall through 
the safety net. They cannot do it. They do not have a tax base to do 
it. They are frightened about what is probably going to happen back 
here.
  Mr. President, there is a statement they want to return the $170 
billion dividend to the American people in the form of a tax cut. I do 
not think that is where the dividend should go. The budget that has 
been proposed slashes the prime trust funds--aid to education, student 
loans, all kinds of medical research, and raises taxes on working 
families who make under $26,000 a year. We have focused on a tax cut. 
That is a priority of the House and their Contract With America. That 
is the foundation of their contract--tax cuts amounting to almost $1 
trillion over the next 10 years. But have we talked about what has 
happened to people who are going to get a tax increase in this budget; 
that is, working families who make under $26,000 a year?
  The earned income tax credit is being slashed with a proposal that 
was introduced, or will be introduced, by the Senate Budget Committee, 
about 7.8 million people, will have their earned income tax credit 
whacked. On an average, these people have their taxes increased by 
$270.
  Earned income tax credit recipients with incomes lower than $26,000 
will lose their eligibility, generally speaking.
  Now, Mr. President, what is an earned income tax credit? It is a way 
of keeping people off welfare, and it is a way of having people who are 
on welfare to get off welfare. Why? Because under current law people 
who make less than $26,000 a year can apply--it is on a sliding scale--
to have part of the taxes they pay rebated to them. It works very well. 
Under current law, with earnings of $16,500 and no other source of 
income, a married couple with two children would have income slightly 
above the poverty level in 1996. While they would not owe individual 
income taxes, they would pay about $2,500 in Social Security taxes on 
their earnings. Under current law, they would receive an earned income 
tax credit for the amount they pay, completely offsetting their tax 
liability.
  That is why people want to get off welfare. That is why people do not 
want to go on welfare. They have a chance to get ahead and be part of 
working America. Because larger families have greater needs than 
smaller families, taxpayers with two or more children are entitled to a 
larger earned income tax credit than taxpayers with one or no children. 
But under the Senate Budget Committee's mark, a very low-wage worker 
with two or more children will receive only a token adjustment to 
compensate him or her for the additional cost of raising this family.
  So, Mr. President, we have to be concerned about the tax increases in 
this mark that we are getting from the Senate. We have heard a lot 
about the tax decreases for the wealthy, but what about the tax 
increases for people who make less than $26,000 a year?
  The budget grants short-term tax cuts, especially that from the 
House, instead of focusing on long-term investments on education, 
health research, and crime control.
  May I ask the Chair how much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 52 seconds remaining of the 
Senator's time.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that I be extended an additional 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I held a crime summit in Las Vegas which, coincidentally, 
had been scheduled for several months. It was the day after the 
Oklahoma City explosion. I met there with the chiefs of police of 
southern Nevada: Boulder City, Las Vegas, Henderson; Federal officials, 
DEA, FBI, judges, and a number of other people in an off-the-record 
discussion about problems relating to crime. There are serious problems 
that we are not addressing. Law enforcement needs help, lots of help. 
Yet, the budget proposal cuts the violent crime trust fund.
  I will be speaking to a number of graduating classes in Nevada in the 
next few weeks. These young people, these high school students do not 
face a very bright future. We are cutting back on student loans and 
grants, instead of being aware of the fact that money we spend for 
education comes back to us.
  Low-income families--we have talked about them--making less than 
$26,000 a year are going to be paying more taxes. The budget resolution 
we have, Mr. President, calls for more taxes.
  Research. I would recommend to every one of my colleagues that they 
go to the National Institutes of Health and talk to the people who have 
dedicated their lives to curing disease. It is wonderful, the stories 
you hear out there. Paralysis. We have a significant number of people 
who have spinal cord injuries. As a result of the perseverance of a 
number of physicians out there, they have been able to make significant 
strides in trauma associated with spinal cord injury. And as a result 
of the work they have done, especially work done with massive doses of 
steroids immediately following an accident, people today who would have 
been paralyzed are not as a result of the work done at the National 
Institutes of Health. The problems that we 
 [[Page S6443]] deal with there deal with people who are sick and 
injured and need help.
  We are going to cut back on that research. That is wrong.
  The time has come, Mr. President, to live up to promises made during 
the balanced budget debate. For example, to protect Social Security. 
The Republicans claim that under their budget they will protect Social 
Security. Social Security, however, will face it's greatest threat 
under this budget in 2002 when this budget supposedly will balance. 
Because Social Security surpluses are being scored against the deficit, 
this budget will collateralize the Social Security trust fund. Black's 
Law Dictionary defines collateral as ``property which is pledged as 
security for the satisfaction of a debt.'' In this budget proposal, the 
definition of collateral is Social Security.
  I think we have to live up to the responsibilities that we have. I 
repeat, we have to do a better job of balancing the budget. This will 
be the third year in a row that the budget will be lower than the year 
before, the first time in 50 years. Certainly, we have to do much 
better than we have done. We have reduced, in the last 2 years, Federal 
employment by 150,000 people. I think that is significant. We have had 
the highest economic growth in some 40 years. That is important. We 
certainly have not done enough. The economy needs a lot of help. The 
one thing we could do that would help more than any other thing would 
be to reduce the deficit, but we cannot do it with tax cuts. We cannot 
do it with cutting educational benefits.
  We have to look at the big items. What are the big items? They are 
interest on the debt, medical expenses, and, of course, we have to look 
at defense. We cannot leave that because 20 percent of every dollar we 
spend goes for defense.
  I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of my committee, 
for his allowing me to go out of order in morning business.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________
```