H 5066 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

The Clinton debt numbers actually

underestimate the problem because

they fail to account for four additional

powerful factors, Mr. Speaker. The taxpayers’ burden is paying interest on

the debt, the cost of higher interest

rates caused by the Federal Government’s borrowing, the imminent financial crisis in Medicare, if it is not

saved, and the soon-retiring

babyboomers and their effect on the

Social Security trust fund.

Every citizen will have to pay a lot

more in taxes and interest on the debt

unless we solve the problem. Over the

next 11 years, we will pay as much in

taxes just to pay the interest on the

debt as the entire debt that has ever

existed.

The following Americans will pay a

lot on interest to the debt which builds

up over a time in their lives. Let us

take Sally, in 1995, $187,150. Our spending today saddles our children with

debt tomorrow. That is not a legacy

that I wish to leave my children.

In 1997 we will pay more for the interest on the debt than we will pay for

all of national defense. That is sad, Mr.

Speaker, and that is on the interest.

That is not on the principal. It does

not go into our banks. It goes to foreign interests and foreign subsidies

used against us in economic warfare

such as Japan, such as China, such as

Russia.

Budget deficits raise interest rates

and cost everyone additional money.

What a balanced budget will mean, I

quote Federal Reserve chairman Alan

Greenspan; I think real incomes and

purchasing power of the real incomes

will significantly improve what they

look for in their children and they are

doing better, and they will do better.

Alan Greenspan stated that most

Americans feel that their children will

do worse than they have in their

present lifetimes. That is a sad commentary, Mr. Speaker.

I feel that we are doing the most important things that we have ever done

in our lives. When we are only getting

small amounts of dollars to the problems that we have, when this nation is

headed for economic ruin and a second

rate country economically and we are

going to lose our health care systems,

we have got to do something about it.

I feel proud to be able to take part in

that. I ask my colleagues on the other

side of the aisle, put away the rhetoric,

put away the information that is coming out and join us and embrace it. We

want to save this country for our children, because, again, if we do not, they

are going to owe far more than we

could ever pay: not a legacy that we

want to leave for our children.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to close in

just a second. I am going to basically

state that in the future of this House

and working with the Senate, with

both sides of the aisle, whether we receive a balanced budget amendment or

not, we are going to balance the budget

in 2002.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KASICH] of the Committee on the Budget

has taken every single Member’s information into account in our conference.

The COLA’s for retirements are back

in. The items, the common goal and

the common thread when it comes

down to it, in the year 2002 we will

have a balanced budget in this country,

and what a great thing that will mean,

Mr. Speaker.

fb 2015

THE FEDERAL BUDGET

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

CAMP). Under the Speaker’s announced

policy of May 12, 1995, the gentlewoman

from Texas [Ms. JACKSON-LEE] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of

the minority leader.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I

rise today to clarify a budget process

that has been caught up in much controversy and debate. I heard a colleague today at an earlier presentation

suggest that we might do well to engage in dialog and turn ourselves away

from this whole idea of debate and

speak to the issues that I believe the

American people can understand. Coming from the 18th District in Texas, the

fourth largest city in the Nation, Houston, I am going to use as a backdrop to

this discussion this evening as a reminder where our State already finds

itself under the present rescissions bill

that is yet to come back to the House

but already evidences that our State

will lose some $1.1 billion in needs of

family nutrition, aid to dependent children, school nutrition, and Medicaid,

that takes care of the many needs of

our children and our senior citizens.

Interestingly, there is a sharp divide

in the vision and the focus of this Nation. For in the debate and the discourse that we have heard, we have

been told that the deficit will break

the very backs of this country. Yet we

find when we analyze the deficit and

compare it to the GNP in this Nation

compared with other western civilization nations, we have the smallest percentage of deficit of any other country.

This does not mean that we do not

face up to our responsibilities and

begin to confront the hard issues of

deficit reduction. As a new Member of

Congress, I have made that commitment because I have come from that

kind of history. For local governments

do not carry deficits from one fiscal

year to the next. We know the hard response of being able to pay as you go.

I do want to clarify, however, that

many of the local and State governments have a luxury that this country

does not, and, that is, that they separate out their operating budget from

the budget that deals with capital improvements, a consideration that I

have raised as a possible direction for

this Nation to take, ongoing debt versus immediate debt.

In any event as we begin to dialog

about this deficit reduction and this

budget resolution, which has been

characterized as a resolution to solve

the budget deficit by the year 2002.

Juxtaposed to that representation is

the inquiry of where the Democrats’

budget proposal might be.

To clarify, it is the responsibility of

the majority party in this House, of

course, to present a budget. Certainly

that was to have been done by April 15

and, of course, we did not receive such

a resolution until last week. Not only

did we not receive it until last week,

about the second week in May, but we

now are to address this resolution and

find a common bond and resolution in

a matter of less than 48 hours. This will

be debated on the House floor tomorrow, Wednesday, and voted on before

the end of this week. There will be

Democratic proposals. There will be

amendments that will be offered. And

so the responsibility that is charged to

those of us who are Democrats is being

upheld. It is unfortunate that the tone

of the debate is suggesting that one’s

responsibility has not been taken care

of.

But the sharp divide over which direction this Nation should go causes

me to rise this evening to say that

clearly the Republican Party needed to

take a couple of more months in order

to strike a more effective chord of bipartisanship that would help to approach the deficit reduction that we all

would like to have but, as well, create

a vision of opportunity and challenge

and success for this Nation.

Interestingly enough as we were

being cajoled into thinking that life

was all right in the late 1920’s and the

early 1930’s under the leadership of the

Republican Party as we moved into the

deep recesses of depression, many people would have thought of a variety of

ways to increase productivity and to

get this country out of the depths of

depression. It, however, took a creative

Government under the leadership of

Franklin Delano Roosevelt to both answer the question of debt but as well

answer the question of productivity.

This country today is crying out for

productivity. It is crying out for a need

of jobs, for the engine to run corporate

America to produce jobs, for the domestic energy industry to be refueled

and retooled. It is crying out for those

who would seek to bridge themselves

out of dependence into independence an

opportunity to do so. This budget does

not speak to that. In fact, it undermines that.

While their proposal would provide

for a balanced budget by the year 2002,

it would abolish several vital Cabinet

departments. Low and moderate income Americans and particularly children would be impacted. According to

the new Washington Post/ABC News

poll, if we are to be pundits of polls, my

opinions are apparently shared by a

majority of Americans. Sixty percent

of poll respondents oppose abolishing

the Education and Energy Departments and 56 percent oppose shutting

down the Commerce Department,

which, by the way, has been a most
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5067

productive department that we have

seen over the last couple of years creating billions of dollars in business opportunities for America’s business,

both small and large. And, of course,

they oppose the cutting of the needs of

those who rely upon Medicare and Medicaid.

I am further concerned about the

budget resolution for several reasons.

One reason is because it would negatively impact the Social Security System and the 43 million Social Security

recipients nationwide.

The Republican leadership has

pledged that Social Security would not

be hurt by their budget, but we now

know that they want to change the

rules. They want to reduce annual

cost-of-living increases that would in

effect cut Social Security benefits by

$24 billion between 1999 and 2002.

Let’s put some faces to that, because

obviously these are just numbers. But

what happens to those citizens who totally rely upon their income and their

support from Social Security? It is all

right to say that in the years past, you

would match pension benefits with Social Security benefits. Those were the

good old days. It comes now full circle

that many of our working citizens, who

for many reasons believed that Social

Security was a trust fund, although we

recognize that it is one where you are

now paying into it to pay for those who

are on it at this point, still the concept

is, I paid into Social Security with the

belief that it would be there for me

upon retirement. The tragedy of that,

however, is that many of those individuals, and particularly those who are on

SSI, the physically challenged, our

children, have come to have that as the

only source of support that they might

need to carry on their life and to survive. That is the face of Social Security. So we can fix something without

eliminating it.

Second, the budget resolution does

not represent an adequate investment

in human capital. We have spent an exercise over the last couple of weeks

talking about welfare reform. I clearly

challenged that, for I am committed to

welfare reform and challenged the proposal that passed this House as welfare

punishment, for it was inconsistent

with the so-called results that were

looked to. That is, by terminating people a certain period of time, there was

some reason to that debate, that citizens should not be on welfare for their

entire life, to break the cycle, but how

much of a response do you get by terminating someone off a benefit that

they may need? Not the able-bodied

citizen or someone who can go out the

next day and get a job but the person

who truly has dependent children, did

not finish their education, and has no

skills.

If you are serious about welfare reform, then you would have several elements: Job training, child care, and

some sort of incentive to your businesses to provide jobs for those individuals. None of that was included in the

welfare proposal that was passed out of

this House. Yet now we come full scale

with a budget that would include several points that cut into my sense that

there is any seriousness with the Republican Party on, one, their commitment to true welfare reform, and then

to a realistic budget that responds to

the deep diversity of this Nation; not

necessarily poor to rich but all of those

in between who may at some time in

their life fall upon hard times, those

individuals who may need Medicaid at

some point, those individuals who may

need a school lunch program or a

school breakfast program at some

point in their life, those who may need

aid to dependent children at some time

in their life. Much of this now in the

rescissions package, which is rescinding back what was already authorized,

is further being cut through the budget.

Let me just cite what is being cut

out of the Republican budget as I talk

about the human capital impact, putting faces to the impact of this budget

resolution. Again, moving us far away

from striking a bipartisan chord to

move us toward deficit reduction and

as well strike a positive vision for this

Nation, one that captures the spirit of

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, creating

the productivity of this Nation to create jobs and opportunity.

First of all we cut Medicare under

this budget by $283 billion over 7 years

from 1996 to 2002. Falsely we are hearing that in fact Medicare will be increased to about $1.4 trillion approximately. This cut, however, which is a

realistic aspect, and I would welcome a

dialogue and a rebuttal of this particular point, it will add $1,060 to the outof-pocket costs of seniors by the year

2002. It will cut Medicaid by $184 billion

over the 7 years. Many of our indigent

seniors rely upon that kind of health

dollars to provide their health care for

them. Clearly there is a singular voice

saying, ‘‘Why do we not have health reform?’’ Of course, we have attempted

that on many occasions. That might be

the appropriate answer than rushing to

judgment and making cuts that would

burden those already burdened.

I have mentioned Social Security

cuts and that would cut the average

benefit over 1999 to 2002, this would

bring the benefits cut to about $240 by

the year 2002.

Of course all of this points to the Republican tax cut which loses revenue

for this Nation of $353 billion over the

next 7 years and gives the wealthiest

families a tax cut of about $20,000 while

giving middle-income families only

about $555 in total tax relief.

I said that this was an opportunity to

clarify the Republican budget, not a

time so much to cite those who would

offer their views. But I will say that

many, many of the economists around

this Nation have all had one voice in

saying that this is the inappropriate

time, the worst time to offer unneeded

tax cuts.

We all wish to offer to the American

people their fair share back from the

Government. There is no doubt on that.

But when you ask them a pointed question as to their desire for effective Federal services, efficient, downsized, responsible Federal services, they will

answer you yes every time as opposed

to a one-time tax cut that does nothing

but add a burden to the Federal Government and reduce the revenue for

much needed desires of reducing the

deficit.

b 2030

Of course ultimately this budget proposal will raise taxes on families by $17

billion between 1999 and 2002 by reducing the indexing of tax breaks, et

cetera, and the personal exemption by

0.6 percent each year.

Let me add what else it will do. I supported the unfunded-mandates legislation, which means that you do not burden your States and local government

with legislation of which they cannot

pay for.

What happens, however, when the

myriad of programs that have been effective and effectively utilized by State

and local governments are no more and

thereby they have to fill in the gap and

pay for these with moneys that they do

not have? That is, in fact, an unfunded

mandate. There you have a budget resolution that has no vision and needs to

be clarified and does not seek, if you

will, or does not provide the results of

which the proponents argue that it

does.

Student loans. I received a very personal and very moving letter from a

student from the University of Houston

asking why would we in a time when

we are encouraging our young people

to be prepared for the technology of

the 21st century, when today we find

that most college students will come

out of college with 70-percent loans and

30-percent scholarships or grants, contrary to some 10 or 15 years ago when

it was quite the opposite, it was 70-percent scholarship and grants and possibly 30-percent loans, they come out

already with a burden of some 70 percent in loans, looking for employment.

We now have before us a proposal by

the Republican Budget Committee,

presented to the House, to cut student

loans by $18.7 billion by charging students interest on their loans while they

are still in school. This is a $5,000-perstudent increase in the interest costs

of the average loan.

What that simply means is for many

students that will simply, and I can underline that word even more, deny

them an opportunity for higher education.

We will also find that a great deal of

the focus will be on domestic spending,

they will cut a lot of our domestic

spending as opposed to spreading the

burden of these cuts around a whole

source of individuals.

Defense spending increases by $69 billion above what has been asked for by

the President’s budget, thereby cutting
H 5068 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

domestic spending and adding to the

defense budget without the full hearing

as to whether or not that is truly needed.

I cannot imagine how in this hightech economy moving into the 21st

Century we would pull away from investing in human capital. I cannot

imagine how we would present to the

world economy ill-prepared students

and ill-prepared citizens because of a

lack of opportunities for education.

The GOP budget would make inexcusable cuts in educational and training programs over the next 7 years.

The Goals 2000 program designed to assist local school districts, parents and

students, and by the way have been

touted by school districts around this

Nation, will experience a $2.8 billion

cut over this period. Again let me remind you we are talking again now

about unfunded mandates because

those programs have been effective in

providing the even playing field in education for many of our primary and

secondary students.

Title I grants which currently aid

more than 700,000 disadvantaged school

children would suffer cuts of $5.1 billion; in essence what happened is they

take the programs that have the least

number of individuals who can walk

the halls and lobby Congresspersons,

because either they are unable, they

are disabled, or they are too young to

speak and, so here we are, here we are

looking at the budget cuts that are

supposed to be reasonable and are supposed to put us moving forward in to

the year 2000, and I can point to you

time after time after time the cuts for

children.

Bilingual education programs serving

650,000 children are particularly important to the State of Texas; that would

be cut by $1.4 billion. Vocational education programs, the programs business leaders tell us will become increasingly critical for the competitiveness of the American work force, programs that assist 1 million noncollegebound Americans gain skills they need

to find good-paying jobs, would be cut

by some $8.2 billion. That is very interesting, because what you find there is

quite the contrary view being spoken

by the CEO’s of major corporations.

They are concerned about the training

of the work force for the 21st century.

They are concerned that there will not

be enough individuals well trained in

technology to meet their employment

needs.

What does that say in cutting the

kind of training that is job-specific,

which is vocational training, that

many of our young people, sometimes

returning adults, adults that are going

back to school having been laid off

through downsizing or the changing

technology in their particular job or

profession, to not have the opportunity

to train in the best training for the

jobs of the 21st century, so we will cut

that.

Some would say well, let the private

sector do it. That has typically not

been the case in these kinds of vocational training opportunities. We have

certainly been able to partnership with

the private sector, but the Government

has been an effective partner in that to

provide the training for these individuals then to go into the work force, to

be productive to allow us to be competitive and then for them to be taxpayers. We have just cut that cycle off

in the most ill-conceived manner that I

could imagine.

The safe and drug-free schools and

communities program would be cut by

$3.4 billion. Having met with two of my

school districts, North Forest Independent School District and Houston

Independent School District, I realize

how important these programs can be

to setting the tone and as well providing a violence-free atmosphere for our

children to learn.

Just today I announced two of our

schools in Houston that were cited for

their drug-free and violence-free atmosphere, Principal Alice Brimberry of

Link Elementary School and Theodore

Merrill of Tidwell Elementary School

with efforts to keep their schools drug

free and violence free, and I would

think they would be shuddering that

these programs would not have the

support that they have had in the past

to go forward more than simply saying

to your youngster, ‘‘Just say no,’’ but

actually allowing them to feel free. I

wonder if you realize that in recent

studies of elementary school students

and middle-school students when questions were asked of them what did they

view as their future or what did they

hope for, some of them said merely to

be alive or they wondered about whether they would grow up to be an adult.

It is the kind of influence that many

of us could not fathom, that children

worry about violence and surviving

past a certain age, whether or not they

will get to be an adult, whether or not

they will get to be married or have

children or live in a society where they

feel safe. These are frightening answers, but it means that it is important for us to invest in human capital.

The Perkins student loan program

which I mentioned earlier in the listing

of the cuts, which makes low-interest

loans to 700,000 students—how about

this—would be totally eliminated.

Now I think we all can address the

issue of ensuring that we pay for what

we get. We want to ensure that students pay back their student loans, and

every student I have seen on campus

has those intentions. If we create a

positive job market for that individual

they will be glad to work and pay back

their loans, but when you talk about

eliminating the opportunity for these

students coming from families who do

not have the means for them to get a

higher education, cutting off their very

lifeline for being further productive

citizens and taxpayers, and contributing to their desire to have a piece of

the American dream, then you have no

vision. And I would not remind many

of you that where the people have no

vision, they will perish.

With respect to Medicare, the proposal favors a reduction, as I said, of

$283 billion over the amount that has

been projected as necessary over the

next 7 years. This cut would result in

an additional $1,060 in out-of-pocket

costs to seniors in 2002. With these proposed reductions in projected costs or

growth, the Medicare Program would

be reduced by 25 percent in 2002. Thus

the annual growth in Medicare would

go from 10 percent down to 5.4 percent.

However, the plan does not take into

account the increase in the number of

the elderly and the inflation in medical

costs. During this period it is estimated that the State of Texas would

lose $17.6 billion by the year 2002, and it

is estimated that each beneficiary in

Texas would be paying an additional

$1,102 in costs.

The Medicare debate is one that I

think causes us a great deal of concern,

because many people ask the question

what are the facts about the Medicare

debate. I would simply say that the

Medicare Program is a critical safety

net for millions of seniors and disabled

Americans. For nearly 30 years this

program has enjoyed a high level of

support from Americans of all ages.

While I support careful and equitable

revisions in this program which are

necessary to secure its long-term stability, I am strongly opposed to harsh

budgetary restraints and spending

growth caps that will adversely affect

our elderly citizens, and which are used

to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.

As we look to tighten our Federal financial belts during this budget process, let me remind my colleagues of

Speaker GINGRICH’s words, every penny

saved in Medicare should go to Medicare.

Well, I wonder if that is actually the

truth. And I would simply raise the

question that I would hope that would

be, in fact, where it would go. But everyone knows that each penny saved in

Medicare will be used for a variety of

other reasons. One, for the tax cuts

that economists have said across this

Nation we do not need.

This is an assault on the livelihood of

this country’s most vulnerable and its

least able to support themselves, and I

believe this is absolutely unacceptable.

If my Republican colleagues are calling for a 5-percent growth cap for this

program, which translates into a program cut by $283 billion, the result will

be an increase of out-of-pocket costs of

$1,000 yearly for Medicare beneficiaries

by 2002. What we have to recognize is

that those who are the beneficiaries of

Medicare are basically on retirement;

their income levels are low. I am sure

many of us have heard the stories

about making decisions to buy prescription drugs verses nutritious food.

For many of our seniors this is reality.

This is something I face in my community on a regular basis. I try to put

faces to statistics, and clearly there
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5069

are seniors concerned about how they

will survive.

This does not mean that they are

selfish, that they are not concerned

with, as I said earlier, about being

more efficient on Medicare. But they

wonder simply the basic question of

how they will survive.

Such increases are virtually equal to

cutting their Social Security benefits

by the same amount. They will have to

take that money to pay for the increase they need in their health care.

As most Medicare beneficiaries must

use their Social Security to pay for

their out-of-pocket costs and expenses,

and to aggravate the situation further

the Republicans are proposing a 0.6 percent consumer price index reduction

for 1999, which will reduce the average

Social Security benefit by $240 per

month below current law projections.

I thought they said Social Security

was off the table. That was mentioned

in a debate that we had. Clearly, it

seems that it is not off the table. What

it is, it is off and out of the pockets of

senior citizens who will have to take

money and use it elsewhere.

I refuse to pick up the newspaper and

read of another senior citizen who has

to make that choice between buying

food and buying medicine. The GAO

has recently reported that the Medicare Program could save over $3 billion

during a 5-year period if their computer systems were upgraded to detect

billing fraud. I ask the question if we

are dialoging about a reasonable budget, and a reasonable method to reduce

the deficit, where is the plan to provide

a computer system that can detect

fraud? There is not a senior who would

not agree with you that we support

getting rid of abuse, getting rid of

fraud, and getting rid of the misuse of

Medicare dollars.

Another option to consider is means

testing for beneficiaries, and that is, as

Senator SIMON has indicated, those individuals earning amounts $100,000 and

above.

b 2045

I would just simply ask the reasonable question: Could there not be some

manner in which part of their health

costs they could pay for? Again, a hard

question. Sometimes hard answers. I

would imagine you would get some individual who would say, ‘‘I should not

pay for any of my cost,’’ but reasonable

men and women could agree that if

your income reached a certain amount

and you had the ability that you did

not have catastrophic illness that took

away all of your income, then we

should look at ways of improving the

medical care system so that individuals with a certain high income bracket might be able to provide for their

own costs by paying for some of their

own insurance.

We have not exhausted all options,

nor have we properly opened this issue

up for public debate. Savings of any

kind add up and allow us more flexibility when dealing with a program that

is facing insolvency.

The other point is that we are doing

this in a vacuum. Where is the debate

on health reform that would take into

consideration improving Medicare and

taking some of these efficiencies so

that we would not talk about burdening seniors with the high cost of Medicare by the cuts that have been proposed by this budget resolution? Medicaid would experience a reduction of

$184 billion.

You can see under the rescissions,

and I am jumping back to the rescissions of which we have already gone

through the House now and gone

through the Senate now, in conference;

we will be seeing it again. The State of

Texas presently under the Republican

rescissions package would lose some

$753 million in Medicaid, mostly on the

backs of our children and elderly.

Now. In this new budget proposal,

$184 billion projected growth over the

next 7 years, and to be converted into

a block grant which would be a reduction of about 30 percent of this program which would add, if this stays as

it is, to the burden of the State. Here

we go again with an unfunded mandate.

Annual growth will be 4 percent instead of the current 10 percent. However, the proposal does not take into

account the increase in the number of

beneficiaries, and the projected increase in nursing home costs and prescription drugs.

Block grants have been touted as an

attractive means of cutting costs.

What block grants do not necessarily

account for and creates a crisis, and

again an unfunded mandate, is increased need. What happens with a

block grant when a community has a

downfall in the economy, a recession, a

loss of an immense number of jobs,

when individuals have to fall back on

their family members for support and

then the block granting for either Medicaid or, in this instance, school

lunches or school breakfasts, run out

and you have a community with express need and no money to pay for it?

As plain as day, as clear as it is in

front of you, it is an unfunded mandate, and clearly it is a burden on local

government, but more importantly, it

is people going without in a country

that has been touted again as a country that cares, but more importantly,

as one of the greatest nations in Western civilization.

Taxes would be raised on families by

$17 billion between 1999 and 2002, as we

have noted already, and again, that

means that the least of those, when we

are telling people we are giving them a

tax cut, by this very budgeting process,

we would wind up raising taxes ultimately on individuals, and so this

would be more or less getting it in the

back, if you will, because it would not

provide any opportunities for these

working people to find any kind of real

benefit.

As we begin to look at how the burden will fall, let me clarify so that we

do not get a sense that these programs

I am talking about are programs that

help those who will not help themselves, and for lack of a better term,

one that emphasizes these are the

deadbeats of our society, and so we do

not want to particularly involve ourselves with those people, because they

do not deserve us to be supportive. If

we want to see who is being helped, let

us look at the percentage of the elderly

that rely on Social Security. Those

who rely on it for 80 percent of their income, that is about 32 percent, so Social Security represents 80 percent of

their income. Fifty-nine percent of

them, it represents 50 percent of their

income, a real hold, if you will, on

many of our senior citizens in our Nation. Social Security is the backbone

of their survival. Then if we want to

look at what will happen under the Republican proposal for seniors and for

individuals paying Medicare expenses,

by the time we get to 2002, we would

wind up with having to pay benefits or

having to pay out of their pocket $3,075

to ensure that they get the coverage

that they need.

Let us find out who uses Medicare.

These individuals who are on Medicare,

51 percent of them are between the

ages of 65 and 74 years. We are recognizing more of our citizens are living

longer, and so their needs are there.

You have got 29 percent who are between 75 to 84 years, then you have got

a good 10 percent that are disabled, and

you have got 10 percent who are 85

years and over. Share program expenditures by income of Medicare individuals or couples; I think this is very important. For some reason, as I indicated, we need to look at means testing

for Medicare, and we can see that there

are about 3 percent of the population

that has Medicare that is making

$50,000 and over. So we see that that is

not a real large problem. The key

comes in; the people who utilize Medicare we can see where their need is.

Sixty-two percent of those make $15,000

or under. That is their income. And

then some 21 percent make $15,000 to

$25,000 a year. This is not a program

that is going to people who can afford

to throw away money.

I think that it would be extremely

detrimental if we followed the Republican plan and cut into the vision of

this country, which is to reward people

who have worked hard and to reward

people who have made a commitment

by their tenacity and perseverance and

their love of this country and then to

undermine them in their later years.

In the State of Texas, we would find

that we would lose a great deal of

money, some $17 billion if this particular program was to go forward. I think

that the vision is foggy, and it is particularly foggy, because I am in shock

that a Republican majority would now

want to posture themselves to cut into

human capital in terms of education,

in terms of Medicare and Medicaid and

then to cut us off in terms of technology and the ability to advance and

compete in a world market.
H 5070 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

For their programs will cut into the

science programs and research development in a very large way. The majority’s budget resolution ignores the reality of our global economy and makes

short-sighted cuts in critical areas.

From fiscal years 1996 to 2002, the

GOP would cut $5.5 billion from the

human space flight program. In fact, as

the budget resolution was unveiled last

week, it would almost double the cut

already proposed for NASA. It would

take $4.9 billion from space and aeronautics and technology research, and

more than $1 billion from academic research infrastructure, like computer

networking. The GOP budget would

also cut several items of medical research.

Let me cite for you an interesting

point that I have just learned, and I

think it is an important point to acknowledge. As we provide health care

dollars and we pay for our health

needs, none of those dollars go for medical research. We see the tragedy that

is going on with the virus in Zaire, and

the inability to detect how to cure it.

Medical research saves money. Medical

research creates an opportunity to cure

illnesses, and yet medical research is

funded predominantly by Federal

funds, and if we were to cut medical research, then we dictate for this Nation

and for this world, and we submit them

or submit all of us to the inability to

find cures for illnesses or to improve

the health condition of the Nation.

Medical research is important. Part

of the budget cut and the budget resolution will negatively impact on medical research. And so it confuses me

that this budget resolution seems to

strike a chord of disharmony.

It pitches itself to a small 3 percent

or more of the Nation, and it does not

set a vision for moving us into the 21st

century. That is why without consultation with local government, you can

find some $6.5 billion being cut from

the Community Development Block

Grant, some $868 million being cut

from the community development financial institutions, employment

training, employment and training and

social services. You are cutting Goals

2000 $2.8 billion, title I $5.1 billion. You

are cutting safe and drug free schools

$3.4 billion. You are cutting all of the

housing programs that would include

modernization of our public housing

units. You are cutting the new construction of public housing units some

$4 billion, eliminating construction of

new public housing units, $13.4 billion,

Legal Services Corporation, you are

cutting $2.5 billion, and with a great

emphasis on vocational training.

And so there is a mixed message

here. There is a message that we have

instructed and we have called upon

America to stand up on our feet, to

stop being dependent, to get off welfare, to stop the cycle of poverty, and

yet we do great damage to our science

and research. We do great damage to

our vocational training, our secondary

and primary education. We do great

damage to our opportunities for local

communities to go into their neighborhoods and provide economic and social

advancement through the Community

Development Block Grants. We take

away the incentive for drug free and violence free schools. We intrude into the

lives and the needs of our senior citizens and the physically challenged and

the disabled by cutting Medicaid and

Medicare, and then we want to carry

on the debate to suggest that it is the

other party that does not have a budget proposal and an answer.

Well, my cry and my call today is

that reasonably we must come together looking for a bipartisan approach to what is a bipartisan problem.

It is America’s problem, and that is to

acknowledge that we have a deficit.

Yet I would say in acknowledging

that we have a deficit, truly we should

acknowledge that we cannot break

that deficit on the backs of those who

are trying to stand up, and clearly I

think the point should be made that if

this budget is to represent a vision of a

people, then in a bipartisan way those

cuts must be spread evenly to provide

the incentives for young people to go

to college, to provide the incentive for

businesses to grow and develop and certainly to be able to provide for those in

their older years. The opposite of that

is to ensure that working families will

be able to face every day the question

of how I will take care of my elderly

parent. They will have to face every

day the idea that their young person in

their home, although they may have

had a job during the summer, while

they were in high school, they may

have the potential for going to college,

but with no work study, no grants, no

loans, they just might not get there. I

would like you to think what we would

face if that was the case.

There is a time now for this to end,

not so much in the resounding debate,

but in solution, and that solution has

to be do not hurt the State of Texas. It

has to be do not hurt the many cities

and towns and rural communities

around this Nation. Let us put forth

the budget resolution that clearly answers the needs of all people, answers

the vision of this country, and that is

that we can make a difference, cut the

deficit, but be proud of the asset that

we have in this Nation, and that asset

is an investment in human capital.

By unanimous consent, leave of abLEAVE OF ABSENCE

fsence was granted to:

Mr. ROGERS (at the request of Mr.

ARMEY), until 12 noon today, on account of a death in the family.

Mr. KLECZKA (at the request of Mr.

GEPHARDT), for today and the balance

of the week, on account of medical reasons.

Mr. LIPINSKI (at the request of Mr.

GEPHARDT), for today, on account of

family illness.

By unanimous consent, permission to

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

faddress the House, following the legislative program and any special orders

heretofore entered, was granted to:

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. WYNN) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mr. LIPINSKI, for 5 minutes, today.

Ms. KAPTUR, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. WISE, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. MILLER of California, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. WARD, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. DEFAZIO, for 5 minutes, today.

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. WALKER) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mr. HORN, for 5 minutes today, and

May 17 and 18.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana, for 5 minutes,

on May 17.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART, for 5 minutes, on

May 17.

Mr. MARTINEZ, for 5 minutes, on May

17 and 18.

By unanimous consent, permission to

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

frevise and extend remarks was granted

to:

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. WYNN) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. OBERSTAR.

Mr. BORSKI.

Ms. NORTON.

Mr. RICHARDSON.

Mr. BONIOR.

Mr. LEVIN in three instances.

Mr. DELLUMS.

Mr. MOAKLEY.

Mr. STARK.

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. WALKER) and to include

extraneous matter:)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM.

Mr. SOLOMON.

Mr. WELDON of Florida.

Mr. RIGGS.

Mr. METCALF.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut.

Mr. WICKER.

Mrs. MORELLA.

Mr. COMBEST.

Mr. MOORHEAD.

Mr. SHAW.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska.

Mr. PORTMAN.

Mr. FIELDS of Texas.

Mr. BLILEY.

Mr. EMERSON.

(The following Members (at the request of Ms. JACKSON-LEE) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. BENTSEN.

Mr. LATOURETTE.

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ.

Mr. PASTOR.

Mr. BUYER.

Mr. ENGEL in two instances.

Mrs. LINCOLN

f.

b 2100

ADJOURNMENT

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I

move that the House do now adjourn.