S6844 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

Instead, it’s senior citizens, the poor, students and ordinary Americans who’ll see programs they depend on gutted, while business,

finance and the richest 1 or 2 percent, far

from making sacrifices, actually get new

benefits and new tax reductions.

He says:

In short, aid to dependent grandmothers,

children, college students and city dwellers

is to be slashed, while aid to dependent corporations, stockbrokers, generals and assorted James Bond imitators survives and

even grows. And if the deficit is substantially reduced under a program like this,

there’ll be a second stage of further upward

income redistribution from upper bracket

profits in the stock and bond markets.

Again, Kevin Phillips, a Republican

says:

If the U.S. budget deficit problem does represent the fiscal equivalent of war—and

maybe it does—then what we are really looking at is one of the most flagrant examples

of war profiteering this century has seen.

Mr. President, the debate will be

about priorities. We ought to balance

the budget, we ought to do it by the

year 2002, but there are a lot of ways to

get to that destination. You do not

have to run down the road and stop and

pick up a few dollars from those who

cannot afford it and then make another

stop and give to those who have a substantial amount already. That is the

purpose of, I think, the discussion of

the Senator from Hawaii.

We are talking about the Republican

party that brings a budget to the floor

and gives very big tax cuts for the

wealthy and takes it from things that

are important—kids who go to school,

working families and the elderly. We

think that these priorities are not in

step or keeping with the best interests

of this country.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder

of my time to the Senator from Hawaii, Senator AKAKA.

Mr. AKAKA addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

MAJORITY’S BUDGET PROPOSALS

FOR MEDICARE AND VETERAN’S

fADMINISTRATION HEALTH CARE

PROGRAMS

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I want to

say good morning to my friend who is

now presiding, Senator INHOFE, from

Oklahoma, and wish him a good day.

I am here to express some of my concerns about some parts of the budget,

and particularly Medicare and Veterans’ Administration health care programs.

Mr. President, earlier this week the

Republican-controlled Budget Committees unveiled their 7-year budget resolutions. The House resolution provides

a generous tax cut for wealthy Americans. The Senate resolution would

allow not one, but two tax cut proposals. The first would be $170 billion in

tax cuts once the Congressional Budget

Office certifies that the savings from

cutting Medicare, education, VA health

care, and the other programs targeted

for reductions are, in fact, achieved.

Further tax cuts would be permitted

if the budget is reduced by an amount

that is greater than the reductions already proposed by the Senate budget

resolution. We can clearly see that Republicans in the House and Senate have

laid the foundation for implementing

the tax proposals outlined in the Contract With America. To pay for their

tax cuts they must reduce programs

that help working families and the elderly.

The Senate budget resolution proposes a $256 billion cut in Medicare

spending over 7 years, but provides no

guidelines on how these savings will be

achieved. This will be the largest Medicare cut in history, and the impact on

beneficiaries and providers will be very

painful.

If Medicare cuts of this magnitude

are approved, the Department of

Health and Human Services estimates

that senior citizen’s out-of-pocket expenses will increase by $900 a year, or a

total of $3,500 over the 7 years. Eightythree percent of Medicare benefits go

to beneficiaries with incomes under

$25,000.

It is obvious who will be hurt by

these cuts. Our Nation’s low-income elderly, who can least afford it, will bear

the brunt of the Medicare cuts.

In addition, cuts to providers will

have serious ramifications on health

care costs since they are passed along

to other health care consumers. Provider cuts could have a devastating impact on urban hospitals which already

bear a disproportionate share of the

Nation’s growing burden of uncompensated care. Reductions in Medicare

payments will also endanger access to

care in rural areas. Nearly 10 million

Medicare beneficiaries—25 percent of

the total Medicare population—live in

rural areas. There is often only a single

hospital in their county. Significant

cuts in Medicare may force rural hospitals to close or cause more providers

to refuse to treat Medicare beneficiaries.

The Senate Budget Committee was

given the opportunity to restore the

cuts in Medicare funding. Two amendments were offered to scrap the tax cut

for the rich in order to fund Medicare.

Unfortunately, they were rejected on

party-line votes. This massive cut in

Medicare funding would not be necessary if the majority abandoned their

tax cut for the wealthy.

Under the Republican plan, the

wealthy will gain while our elderly

population suffers more pain. Instead

of cutting Medicare, we must work to

ensure that any effort to maintain the

solvency of the Medicare trust fund

does not put Medicare beneficiaries at

risk. And, we must protect the program for future enrollees. This problem

can and should be solved in the context

of health care reform.

I recognize the critical need to ensure long-term stability in the Medicare Program and I support efforts to

balance our budget. However, I am opposed to arbitrarily cutting Medicare

to finance a tax break for wealthy

Americans. I look forward to working

with my colleagues on addressing these

important issues.

Just as health care benefits are being

cut for our senior citizens dependent on

Medicare, the freeze proposed on veterans health care programs would be

equally devastating for our elderly veterans.

At first glance, the majority budget

seems to have little impact on veterans

health care programs. The chairman’s

mark shields the Veterans Health Administration from cuts, and freezes

funding at the 1995 level. However, if

you examine the long-term impact of

the proposal, you find that the proposed freeze will have a debilitating effect on health care provided to our Nation’s veterans.

The budget resolution contains only

half of the annual cost-of-living adjustments [COLA], so the Veterans’ Administration must absorb the remainder of

the increase from a budget that is already being held flat. This will mean

that fewer resources will be available

to veterans seeking access to veteran

health care programs.

In fiscal year 1996, the majority’s

proposal will cut $640 million from the

Veterans Health Administration’s

budget compared to the President’s

budget request. The options to cope

with this cut include the elimination of

8,200 health care providers and support

staff or closing Veterans Administration Medical Centers [VAMC] to

achieve a total reduction of 1,500 patient beds. In terms of direct care services, 57,000 inpatient and 1,300,000 outpatient visits for 142,000 patients would

be foregone in fiscal year 1996 under

the Republican proposal.

Under their proposal, by the year

2002, 53,000 full-time-equivalent positions would be eliminated or 35 Veterans’ Administration medical centers

would have to be closed. Over a 7-year

period, one-fourth of the current medical care positions would have to be

eliminated and 35 of the 159 Veterans’

Administration medical centers currently serving veterans across the

country would be closed if the Republican proposal is implemented.

Health care facilities and personnel

are not the only areas which will be affected by the majority’s proposal. Medical research within the Veterans’ Administration would also be frozen at

the fiscal year 1995 appropriation level.

This will significantly impact the specialized services the Veterans’ Administration provides, including spinal

cord and prosthetics research. In fiscal

year 1996, over 150 projects would have

to be terminated to meet the budget

constraints imposed by the majority.

The cumulative impact for Veterans

Health Administration services over 7

years would decimate the Veterans’

Administration health care system as

we know it. By the year 2002, the Veterans Health Administration budget

would have lost $20.6 billion over 7

years. Over 1.5 million inpatient and 34
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6845

million outpatient visits for 3.7 million

patients would have been denied under

the majority’s budget blueprint, and

we will have turned our backs on the

majority of those who so valiantly

served this Nation.

Mr. President, this has been our findings in reading through the budget proposal that will be presented today to

the Senate. The majority’s budget proposals for cuts to Medicare and freezing

Veterans’ Administration health care

programs are simply, in my eyes and in

my heart, unacceptable. You cannot

single out health care for one segment

of the population for cuts without serious consequences. The senior citizens

of today, the veterans of today, should

not have the rugs pulled out from

under them. So, therefore, I urge my

colleagues to reject these unwise proposals.

I yield the remainder of my time.

THE VOTERS HAVE SAID ‘‘YES’’

IS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE?

fMr. HELMS. Mr. President, the impression simply will not go away: The

$4.8 trillion Federal debt is a grotesque

parallel to the energizer bunny we see,

and see, and see on television. The Federal debt keeps going and going and

going—up, of course—always to the

added misery of the American taxpayers.

So many politicians talk a good

game—when, that is, they go home to

talk—and ‘‘talk’’ is the operative

word—about bringing Federal deficits

and the Federal debt under control.

But, sad to say, so many of these

very same politicians have regularly

voted for one bloated spending bill

after another during the 103d Congress

and before. Come to think about it,

this may have been a primary factor in

the new configuration of U.S. Senators

as a result of last November’s elections.

In any event, Mr. President, as of

yesterday, Wednesday, May 17, at the

close of business, the total Federal

debt stood—down to the penny—at exactly $4,884,246,600,937.11 or $18,540.68

per man, woman, and child on a per

capital basis. Res ipsa loquitus.

THE RETIREMENT OF REAR ADM.

PATRICK W. DRENNON, CEC, USN

fMr. NUNN. Mr. President, it has

come to my attention that Rear Adm.

Patrick W. Drennon will be retiring

from the Navy after some 33 years of

honorable and distinguished service.

He most recently served as the Director, Facilities and Engineering Division (N44) for the Deputy Chief of

Naval Operations (Logistics), Washington, DC. In this capacity he has provided timely support and accurate information on Navy facility and engineering plans and programs to the

Members of the Senate and our professional and personal staffs.

Admiral Drennon was previously the

Commander of Western Division, Naval

Facilities Engineering Command

[NAVFACENGCOM], headquartered in

San Bruno, CA. This was following

duty as Deputy Commander for Planning and Assistant Commander for Facilities and Real Estate at

NAVFACENGCOM Headquarters in Alexandria, VA, and as Assistant for Civil

Engineering (OP–04E) to the Deputy

Chief of Naval Operations (Logistics),

Washington, DC.

His other duty assignments have included: Assistant Resident Officer in

Charge of Construction in Key West,

FL; Public Works Officer at the Naval

Facility and the Navy Representative

for Construction while on the staff of

the Commander, U.S. Forces in the

Azores; Operations Officer of Naval Mobile Construction Battalion One on two

deployments to Vietnam; an instructor

at the Civil Engineer Corps Officers

School at Port Hueneme, CA; and an

Exchange Officer with the Mediterranean Division, Corps of Engineers,

Livorno, Italy. While working with the

Corps’ Mediterranean Division, he

served as the program manager for the

planning and design of King Khalid

Military City, Saudi Arabia.

Admiral Drennon also served in the

Seabee Division, NAVFACENGCOM

Headquarters; on the staff of the thenDirector, Shore Activities Planning

and Programming Division (OP–44) for

the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, DC; and as the Executive Officer of the Public Works Center and

Resident Officer in Charge of Construction in San Diego, CA.

His awards include the Legion of

Merit, Bronze Star with Combat ‘‘V’’

and a Gold Star, the Meritorious Service Medal with a Gold Star, and the

Navy Achievement Medal.

Rear Admiral Drennon has become

widely acknowledged as a leader and

visionary in the Civil Engineer Corps.

As a fellow Georgia Tech Yellow Jacket, I can say that this is no real surprise as Rear Admiral Dennon began

his distinguished naval career upon his

commissioning out of the NROTC Program at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Mr. President, over the past several

years many communities have experienced great anxiety and turmoil as a

result of the Department of Defense’s

base closure process. Rear Admiral

Drennon has played a vital role in promoting effective communications and

harmonious working relationships in

the Navy’s base realignment and closure implementation process. He has

assisted local civic leaders throughout

the country in working through many

challenging situations associated with

base closure and realignment actions.

Rear Admiral Drennon has been equally recognized and appreciated by all

who have come to know him.

A man of Rear Admiral Drennon’s

talent and integrity is rare indeed, and

while his honorable service will be

genuinely missed, it gives me great

pleasure today to recognize him before

my colleagues and to wish him, his

wife, Cheryl, and his family every success as he brings to a close a long and

distinguished career in the U.S. Navy.

TEXAS ACTS ON FLAG

DESECRATION

fMr. GRAMM. Mr. President, Texas

Secretary of State, the Honorable Antonio O. Garza, Jr., has forwarded to

me a copy of a resolution passed by the

Texas Legislature on March 9, 1995 and

signed by Governor George Bush. The

resolution petitions the U.S. Congress

to propose to the States an amendment

to the Constitution of the United

States which protects the American

flag from willful desecration. I supported the passage of such an amendment in 1990 when the Senate debated

the issue and have cosponsored the

most recent proposal to ban the desecration of our flag. Secretary Garza

has requested that I place in the

RECORD the text of the resolution

adopted by the Texas Legislature. Because of the importance that I place on

this issue, I am requesting unanimous

consent that the text of the resolution

and the text of a letter from Secretary

of State Garza be printed in the

RECORD in order that my colleagues

have an opportunity to read for themselves this important expression of the

collective will of the people of my

State.

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

RECORD, as follows:

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE,

Austin, TX, April 13, 1995.

Hon. PHIL GRAMM,

U.S. Senator, Russell Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR GRAMM: Please find enclosed an official copy of Senate Concurrent

Resolution 24, as passed by the 74th Legislature, Regular Session, 1995, of the State of

Texas.

The 74th Legislature of the State of Texas

hereby petitions the Congress of the United

States of America to propose to the states an

amendment to the United States Constitution, protecting the American flag and 50

state flags from willful desecration and exempting such desecration from constitutional construction as a First Amendment

right.

It is also requested that this resolution be

officially entered in the Congressional

Record as a memorial to the Congress of the

United States.

Sincerely,

ANTONIO O. GARZA, Jr.,

Secretary of State.

Enclosure.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 24

Whereas, the United States flag belongs to

all Americans and ought not be desecrated

by any one individual, even under principles

of free expression, any more than we would

allow desecration of the Declaration of Independence, Statue of Liberty, Lincoln Memorial, Yellowstone National Park, or any

other common inheritance which the people

of this land hold dear; and

Whereas, the United States Supreme

Court, in contravention of this postulate,

has by a narrow decision held to be a First

Amendment freedom the license to destroy