H 5180 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

have an obligation to take the first

giant step toward balancing this massive Federal budget and bringing this

debt into line.

b 2200

I think we owe it to ourselves, we

owe it to our fellow citizens, but most

importantly I think we owe it to our

children and grandchildren. I think it

is time for a little common sense here

in Washington. I think it is time for us

to begin the process of living up to our

obligation, and I think it is time for us

to balance the budget. I think the

American people are way out in front

of us, I think they expect no less, and

I think tomorrow we will make good on

that pledge and we will begin that

process.

THE BUDGET VERSUS OUR

fSENIORS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. FOX

of Pennsylvania). Under the Speaker’s

announced policy of May 12, 1995, the

gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BONIOR]

is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be joined this evening by

some very good friends, and we are

going to talk about this budget, and we

are going to talk about the Medicare

system. I am joined by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. PELOSI],

the gentlewoman from Connecticut

[Ms. DELAURO], and the gentleman

from Vermont [Mr. SANDERS].

Mr. Speaker, let me just answer—I

want to answer my friends from the

other side of the aisle when they were

speaking, and I have the opportunity

to do so now. They talked about the

issue of the Medicare trust fund and

about its bankruptcy. It should be duly

noted that less than 2 months ago, on

this very floor, every single Republican

voted for a tax bill that took $87 billion

out of that same Medicare trust fund in

order to pay, in order to pay, for a tax

break for the wealthiest people in our

society, and that is what happened.

Now it is rather disturbing to hear

them say that they are going to fix

this. They were not for the Medicare

program in 1965. They have not been

for fixing it or doing anything about it

since. In fact, the gentleman from

Texas [Mr. ARMEY] and the gentleman

from Georgia [Mr. GINGRICH], their

leaders, have said repeatedly on occasions, recent occasions, that they

wanted to change the nature of the system, and, by golly, they certainly are.

Let me, if I could, switch gears a little bit and talk about the people who

are affected here.

Mr. Speaker, it was 50 years ago this

week that America defeated Nazi Germany in World War II, and all over

American and all over Europe we celebrated that day by remembering the

brave men and women on both the battlefront and on the home front who led

this country to victory.

As my colleagues know, looking at

pictures of our parents and grandparents taken back then, they were so

young, and they were so full of life, it

is hard to believe that they would ever

grow old. But they have.

The generation that beat Hitler, that

built our economy, that raised our

families, are now America’s senior citizens, and today many of them are living on fixed incomes. Their Social Security check is the only thing that

many older Americans have each

month to pay their rent, to pay their

heating bill, to pay for their food, and

medicine and their doctor bills. For

most of them it is not easy. They have

to struggle to make ends meet.

But today, instead of trying to make

it a little easier for them, to help them

through a very difficult time in their

life, the Republicans in the Congress

are trying to make living very hard for

them.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a little earlier,

this comes down to one very, very

basic and simple question: ‘‘Do you

think we should cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in order to pay

for tax cuts for the very privileged

few?’’ In the next few days we are going

to see a lot of charts and numbers on

this floor, and we saw them today, but

this debate is not just about numbers.

It is about people, it is about people,

people like this lady right here, Margaret Lesley, who I have a picture of.

Margaret is a proud senior citizen

and a dear friend of mine who lives in

my district. Fifty-one years ago she

was known to her friends as Maggie the

Riveter, and she was young, she answered the call of this country. She

helped build the B–29’s that helped the

Allies win the Second World War.

Like most of her generation, Mr.

Speaker, today Margaret lives on Social Security. After paying for her

rent, and her medicine, and her Medicare premium, and her medigap premium, she is left at the end of the

month with $130, and with that she has

to pay for her food, her heat, the bills

that she has, or perhaps some little

extra that she desires, and she struggles mightily to make ends meet.

But instead of trying to make

Margaret’s life a little easier, this Republican budget is going to make it a

heck of a lot harder. The budget before

us today will take $240 out of

Maragaret’s Social Security check, and

over the next 7 years it will take $3,500

out of her pocket to pay for Medicare,

and then the last year that money will

amount to over a thousand dollars.

Now they are not doing that to balance the budget or to cut the deficit.

The Republicans are cutting Medicare

for Margaret for one reason and one

reason only, and that is to pay for tax

breaks for the wealthiest people in our

society and the wealthiest corporations

in America.

Now something they did not show

you on the other side of the aisle, but

I will. It is a piece that was in the Wall

Street Journal after we passed the tax

bill. The Wall Street Journal said, and

I quote, ‘‘The tax bill could mean a

windfall for the well off,’’ and then it

goes on. ‘‘It could turn out to be the

biggest tax savings bonanza in years

for upper-income Americans.’’ Boy, you

bet it could turn out to be the biggest

income savings because indeed that is

exactly what is happening. And if you

are a wealthy corporation, you do not

have to pay any taxes at all.

The last time the Republicans were

in power, in the early 1980’s, if you

looked at the 250 largest corporations

in America, 130 of them paid no taxes

for at least 1 year; in the early 1980’s,

no taxes at all. It was such an outrage

that the people in this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats, even President Reagan, decided we would change

it we would change it so they pay at

least a minimum, and it became law.

And now in the bill that we passed less

than 2 months ago the Republicans

have repealed the law, and now major

corporations all over this country, the

largest ones, will get away without

paying any taxes at all, and you know

who is going to have to pick up the

rest.

Now did the Republicans target the

200 billion we dole out in corporate tax

breaks ever year? We dole out over $200

billion in tax loopholes to the largest

corporations in America. You want examples? A 4.3 billion every year in agricultural irrigation subsidies to the

largest corporate farmers in America;

1.2 billion a year in mining subsidies to

the mining companies for royalties on

public lands. And it is endless. Do they

do anything about that? No, they did

not touch it, did not touch it. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. ARCHER], the

chairman of the Committee on Ways

and Means, would not have anything to

do with it.

Now did the Republicans target the

billionaires who give up their U.S. citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes?

I know that sounds like who would do

that? We have people who have done it,

who have avoided paying taxes by giving up their U.S. citizenships, and they

are very wealthy people, and the drain

on the Treasury for those people over

10 years is about $3.6 billion I ask, ‘‘Can

you imagine giving up your citizenship

in order to avoid paying taxes?’’

The country in which Margaret and

others defended, these businesses, with

the hard work of men and women in

this country, provided for these millionaires and billionaires, and all of a

sudden they do not want to make their

fair share.

The Republicans could have gotten

rid of that, and they said no. They argued and protected these people, except

for five of them. Five Republicans said

this is outrageous. The rest, 225 of

them, stood up and said, ‘‘we’re for

you. No, indeed we will not touch your

tax break.’’ Instead they are targeting

senior citizens like Margaret.

And just do not take my word for it.

The New York Times revealed the contents of a secret memo that the Republicans circulated, and in that memo,

under the Republican plan Medicare
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5181

deductibles will double, premiums will

go up to 50 percent, copayments will

increase, care will be rationed, and the

choice of doctors will be limited.

We just heard the gentleman from

the Republican side of the aisle a few

minutes ago talking about changing

the Medicare system. What he was alluding to was this memo; what he was

alluding to is, if you want to keep your

own doctor that you have confidence

in, it is going to probably cost you an

extra $2,000 to $3,000 a year because you

are going to have to pay an extra premium above the extra premium that

they are going to charge you for that

privilege.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues,

this is not going to just affect senior

citizens. How is the average working

family going to pay for the cost of caring for their parents and grandparents?

And I would tell my colleagues, ‘‘Don’t

come to the floor and tell us you’re

trying to save the Medicare system. As

Margaret Lesley says, Republicans

haven’t cared about Medicare for 30

years, and we’re not about to believe

you now, and she was absolutely right,

absolutely right.’’

I should tell Margaret the other bad

news here and all the seniors in America. It is that there is a cut in your Social Security in their budget. Yes, it is

going to cost Margaret hundreds, if not

thousands, of dollars by the end of the

decade because of what they will do to

her cost of living.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is not just

about numbers. It is about basic dignity. People like Margaret Lesley

stood by this country in time of peace,

and they stood by it in time of war, and

it is important for us to stand by them

today. That is a sacred promise that we

made to Medicare, and it is time that

we lived up to the promise. But this

budget has broken that promise, and at

the end of the day senior citizens and

working families throughout this country will be asking one basic question,

one question: Why are Republicans cutting Medicare, and cutting Medicaid,

and cutting Social Security in order to

give a tax break to the wealthiest people in our society?

We are talking about 1.1 million people in the United States that will be

getting a $20,000 tax cut. These are people who make over $230,000 a year. That

is the amount of money basically that

the tax cut provides for these people

that they are using to cut Medicare.

That is what this is all about, this

debate. It is the shifting of the wealth

of the country away from our seniors,

away from middle working class families and shifting it all the way up to

the top.

I say to my colleagues, people wonder

why can’t I make it? Since 1979, since

1979, 98 percent of all income growth in

the U.S. has gone to the top 20 percent

of the people. Ninety-eight percent;

that means 80 percent are standing

still or they are going down in their

purchasing power. This budget assaults

that proposition is a way that I haven’t

seen in my years in public life, and it

seems to me that, as Members of this

body who care about this program, and

care about our elderly people, and care

about people like Margaret who went

on line when the country called in the

1940’s, that it is time for us to stand up

for them today.

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to

engage my friends and colleagues and

get their views on this. I know the gentlewoman from California [Ms. PELOSI]

has also a similar experience, and I

would yield to her for any comments

she might have now.

b 2215

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman

for yielding and for his very important

statement on what this budget debate

is about. I think it is important to return to your point about the cut in Social Security, because while the cuts in

Medicare are clear and obvious, it is

also important for seniors to understand that with the increased

copayment that they are going to have

to pay and other out-of-pocket expenses, their Social Security benefits

and any cost of living adjustment in

their Social Security benefits will be

eaten up by the increase in the Medicare out-of-pocket they will have to

pay.

As you know, Mr. Whip, the Urban

Institute projects that about 21 percent

of seniors’ income is spent on health

care.

Mr. BONIOR. The highest of any

group, as I understand it.

Mr. PELOSI. In our State of California, it is even higher. That is hard to

believe, but it is. So seniors living on

fixed incomes, with this being a big

part of their budget and the highest of

any Americans, what they have to pay

for health care, the very idea that

someone can say we are not touching

Social Security, it is just like saying I

am not going to touch your food budget, I am just going to double your rent.

Where do you end up at the end of the

day?

I think the point that you make

about the impact on Social Security

and the disposable income that seniors

would have is a very important one for

our seniors to know. Not only is this an

attack on Medicare, but it is a backdoor attack on Social Security.

Mr. BONIOR. And they promised us

they were not going to touch Social Security. They promised us that. Here

they are on the floor attacking Social

Security, attacking the COLAs of people who depend upon it. These are people who need medicine, who cannot get

medicine because we do not have a prescription drug program in this country,

who need long-term care and home

health care, and we cannot get a decent

proposal to add on to the Medicare system to deal with those particular problems.

They were successful, I regret to say,

in deep-sixing some of the decent proposals we had for elderly with regard to

providing them with prescription drug

care, so they do not have to make the

terrible choice between the medicine

they need or the food or heat they need

in their homes. They were responsible

for making the terrible choice that

these folks have now with regard to

their long-term care and their home

health care, that choice put before

them, either that or not providing for

their relatives, by killing basically

health care last year.

Now they are back at it again. After

the election they are here. Not only

have they taken an assault on the seniors of this country by deep-sixing any

health care reform, now they come

here and they want to go after not only

Medicare, but, as the gentlewoman

from California states, Social Security.

I yield to my friend from Connecticut.

Ms. DELAURO. I think your point at

the outset of your remarks bears repeating, which is that these are folks

who for the last several days have been

talking about saving the Medicare system, when they have not really cared

much about the Medicare system at

all. Just a few weeks ago, as you pointed out, they took $87 billion out of the

trust fund over a 10-year period of

time, without blinking an eye. They

did not want to debate it, did not talk

about it.

This was their crown jewel, their

whole tax cut and their tax break plan.

And now they are here trying to pull

another fast one on the American public. And I think that they worked hard

today on this floor to hoodwink the

American people, and people that I represent, and they are here in this photograph with us tonight on this floor and

here earlier today, Julius and Dottie,

who are people who have served this

Nation, and our Republican colleagues

are trying to fool these folks into

thinking they are not cutting their

Medicare payments, and then backdoor them with their Social Security

payments.

The fact is, the facts just speak for

themselves. The article that you referred to, and they do not want to

admit it, our Republican colleagues do

not want to admit it, from the New

York Times, which says they there are

confidential documents from the House

Committee on the Budget tht show

that the Republicans are recommending changes that would increase the

deductibles, that would increase premiums. The deductible increase would

go from $100 to $150 in 1996, and more

every single year after that, because

that would rise with inflation. But

what they do not want to do is to have

the benefits rise with inflation. They

refuse to do that, but the costs will rise

with inflation.

Mr. BONIOR. How about the premiums? What are the premium rates?

Ms. DELAURO. The premiums will go

up nearly double. They will go to $84 in

the year 2002, and that means seniors

will pay $456 more a year than they do

today. It is really incredible. In Connecticut, in my state, you will see that
H 5182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

the enrollees, Medicare enrollees, will

pay an additional $1,167 every year,

and, over 7 years, $3,800. They also put

on, and I would just ask my colleagues

to comment on this, a 20 percent sick

tax on home health care and on laboratory tests. I do not know about you,

but lots of the seniors that I know go

for substantial laboratory tests. Certainly the Ruskins do. Julian and

Dottie go for lots of laboratory tests.

Imagine what that means in terms of

having to have a 20 percent tax put on

them for those tests.

The other point that our colleagues

do not want to mention is the whole

issue of choice and choice of doctors.

Mr. BONIOR. That is a big, big issue.

I mean, how many of us here have relatives and parents who really depend

upon a certain doctor for their services. And under this plan that the Republicans have, they are moving people

into health maintenance organizations,

managed care, HMO’s, where you will

not have a choice. And they may preserve a choice in the bill, but you are

going to have to pay an extra, and I

forgot what the memo said, but I think

it is a substantial amount of money.

We are talking an additional $1 or $2

thousand just in order to have that

choice, I think.

So it really stretches what in fact

these folks can indeed bear.

I yield to my friend from Vermont to

join in on this, if he cares to.

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you very

much. I did not bring any photographs

of Vermonters with me, but I can tell

you that I have attended many meetings at senior citizen centers throughout the State of Vermont, and I can

tell you right now, and many people

who are not senior citizens do not understand, oh, if somebody has Medicare, they have everything they need.

No problem. They are fully covered.

But you understand that with Medicare, people are paying sizeable premiums. Often they have to take out

what is called Medigap insurance in addition to that. And despite that, Medicare does not cover prescription drugs.

So right now in the State of Vermont, many, many people say, ‘‘I have

to make a choice between heating my

home in the wintertime, it gets very

cold in Vermont in the wintertime, or

coming up with the money to pay my

prescription drugs.’’

Now what will happen to those people

if they are forced to pay larger premiums or more out-of-pocket expenses?

God only knows, but it will certainly

be a very terrible day for them.

I think the main point that I would

like to make in this discussion, and

you have already made the point, is

that we all recognize that this country

has a serious deficit and a serious national debt. Our Republican friends

have not told us, however, how giving

huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country is going to move us

forward toward balancing the budget.

What we are talking about is a tax

bill in which half of the tax breaks go

to people making $100,000 a year or

more. Further, 25 percent of the tax

breaks go to people making $200,000 a

year or more, and the wealthiest 1 percent get more in tax breaks than the

bottom 60 percent.

Mr. BONIOR. That is a staggering

statistic. I think it bears repeating

again, the last one.

Mr. SANDERS. Let’s repeat it again.

At a time when the rich are getting

richer, when the middle class is shrinking, and poverty is increasing, the

wealthiest 1 percent get more in tax

breaks than do the bottom 60 percent.

There is another point that needs to

be made, and I do not think it was covered very well this afternoon. And that

is we should ask ourselves how did we

get into the position of having a $4.7

trillion national debt? How did it happen? I think everybody in this room

understands that in the 1980’s the national debt took off. It went from $1

trillion to over $4 trillion.

What our friends in the Republican

Party forgot to mention is that between 1981 and 1992, the wealthiest 1

percent of the population received $1.5

trillion in tax breaks. Let me say it

again. Between 1981 and 1992, the

wealthiest 1 percent of the population

received $1.5 trillion in tax breaks. Between those tax breaks, between increased military spending, the country

in fact ran up a large national debt.

It seems to me that the way you

solve the problem is not to give more

tax breaks to the people who are primarily responsible for causing the national debt in the first place, and it

seems to me to be grossly unfair to be

going after the working people and the

low income people whose incomes have

significantly declined over the last 18

years. So this continues the Robin

Hood proposal in reverse. We take from

working people and low income people

and we give to the rich. I think that is

the essence of what this proposal is

about.

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will

yield on that point, it is very interesting to hear this debate, because as you

say, it is very familiar. Increase defense spending, give tax breaks to the

wealthiest Americans, and the benefits

will trickle down. And here we are

again, as Yogi Berra would say, it is

deja vu all over again. What is interesting about it, and it is a real tribute to

President Clinton, is this is the first

year, the 1995 fiscal year budget we are

in now, is the first time since the 1960’s

that we have a budget that has an operating surplus. President Clinton has

saved $50 billion.

In other words, the revenues coming

in are $50 billion more than what is

being spent by the Federal Government, except we have to pay for the

trickle-down economics of the eighties,

a $240 to $250 billion interest on the national debt. So we consequently have a

$190 to $200 billion deficit this year.

But President Clinton is the first

President since the sixties to have a

budget that takes in more money than

it spends except for that interest. I

think that is important to note, because our colleagues on the other side

of the aisle in the Republican majority

keep saying what is President Clinton

doing. President Clinton is moving toward reducing the national deficit and

the national debt.

Mr. BONIOR. When the President

took office, the annual deficit was

about $360 billion. After we passed our

budget bill during the first term, the

historic vote we had on this floor, that

debt, annual debt, has been decreasing

to the point of $165 billion. That is a

$200 billion difference. We are on a

glide path to getting there. But you

cannot give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our society, and ask people like Margaret and people from Connecticut and the lovely lady that you

have next to you there.

Ms. PELOSI. Enola Maxwell.

Mr. BONIOR. From San Francisco.

Why do not you tell us about her.

b 2230

Ms. PELOSI. I talked earlier about

her on the floor debate. This is Enola

Maxwell. She is 75 years old. For 20

years she has been the executive director of the Petrillo Hill, serving meals

to senior citizens, meeting the needs of

inner city youths and helping with

community services in that way.

Enola had a heart attack recently,

and I read her statement earlier about

what a comfort Medicare was in every

possible way, the confidence that her

benefits would be there.

She asked the question: ‘‘Why would

the Republicans want to give a tax

break to the wealthiest Americans and

America’s corporations, and have that

tax break be paid for by reducing the

Medicare benefits to America’s senior

citizens? That is breaking a promise to

America’s citizens.’’

Further to that point, I think it is

important to focus on what it is they

are proposing. In their restructuring

options, they are talking about restructuring the traditional fee-forservice plan. The option lists 35 recommendations, which include increasing beneficiaries’ out of pocket expenses, copayments, premiums,

deductibles, and cutting payments to

providers, hospitals, and doctors.

It is interesting on that point, because their own Members, the gentleman from Kentucky, JIM BUNNING

on the Committee on Ways and Means,

has said ‘‘Of course I think everybody,

if they tell the truth, realizes we cannot keep cutting the reimbursement

for doctors and hospitals without destroying the quality of health care.

The savings aren’t real anyway. The

costs are just shifted out of the Government’s budget into the private sector.’’

Then, in addition to that, their other

options include ‘‘replace the current

benefits with a voucher.’’ Listen to this

one. ‘‘Instead of receiving approved

services, as needed, seniors would receive a fixed voucher amount to purchase their health insurance. Federal
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5183

costs are limited by the amount of the

voucher, although a catastrophic cap of

$10,000 per beneficiary is recommended.’’ Imagine that.

Mr. BONIOR. You can eat $10,000 up

in a very, very short time.

Ms. PELOSI. Anyone who has been to

the hospital knows that. Then they say

‘‘expand managed care options currently available. Increase beneficiaries’

out of pocket.’’ Increasing beneficiaries

out of pocket is in every option, so people have to know that.

‘‘In nonmanaged care settings, limit

providers’ benefits and enforce spending limits.’’ AARP has said that seniors are being asked to: ‘‘Seniors are

being asked to pay a 50 percent increase in Medicare part B.’’ That was

not AARP. AARP was saying that the

Republican budget will mean an increase of $3,000 over the next 7 years

for a Medicare beneficiary, $3,000 over

the next 7 years. Where are these people going to get it, and why? To give a

tax break to the corporations and the

wealthiest Americans.

Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms.

DELAURO].

Ms. DELAURO. That is what I find so

disingenuous about the arguments the

Republicans have made all day today

on the floor of the House. They talk

about that there is—they talk about

Medicare increasing, and that these

out of pocket costs we are making up.

Their plan does not keep up with inflation. It does not allow for increased enrollment in the program.

It is a very similar argument, if you

will recall, that they made on the

school lunch issue, where they said

that they were going up 41⁄2 percent,

but in fact the program increases 61⁄2

percent, so, by just very basic subtraction, you have a 2-percent shortfall.

It is their same argument here, but

what in fact it is, and it is the height

of hypocrisy, to claim that they are

not making the cut. We have all listened to them on the floor of this

House. They have argued over and over

again, and you mentioned, my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, mentioned the defense budget.

They have talked about the defense

budget over and over again, that it is

being cut, when you treat defense in

the same way, in the very, very same

way.

When the defense budget goes up, but

not enough to keep up with the cost of

a weapons system, the Republicans call

it ‘‘a cut,’’ over and over and over

again. That is why they have called for

an increase in this budget for defense.

When the defense budget goes up, but

not enough to maintain the same troop

levels that we have, the Republicans

call it a cut. Why is it that now, in this

debate, when Medicare spending does

not keep up with inflation, and it does

not keep up with the health care costs,

or the increase in enrollment, do they

say this is not a cut? It is hypocrisy

and it is disingenuous, and we have to

keep getting this message out to the

American public.

Mr. BONIOR. Because these people

are not their constituencies.

Ms. DELAURO. That is right.

Mr. SANDERS. We have touched on

the fact that these cuts will be devastating for Medicare recipients, they

will be devastating for Medicaid recipients, they will be devastating for Social Security recipients.

Let us also mention, especially those

of us from the cold weather States,

that they propose to eliminate, cut

completely, the fuel assistance program, LIHEAP, of which 40 percent of

the recipients of senior citizens. That

means in the State of Vermont or in

the State of Michigan, when the weather gets pretty cold and we have low-income senior citizens who need help to

pay their fuel bills, it is gone. What

happens to those people?

We should also point out that such

wonderful programs as RSVP are eliminated. The Foster Grandparent Program is eliminated. Also, we should understand that at a time when everybody in America understands that this

Nation needs to be competitive in the

global market, that we need to have

the best educated work force in the

world, major, major cuts in education.

What a stupid approach, cutting your

nose off to spite your face. Among

other things, what this Republican proposal does is cut student loans by $33

billion. In the State of Vermont right

now we have thousands of families, and

I have had hearings on this, people are

working 50 or 60 hours a week to send

their kids to college. The cost of college is going off the wall.

If we cut back on those student

loans, there will be hundreds of thousands of young people all over America

who will never have the opportunity to

go to college. To do this in order to

give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America is very wrong.

Mr. BONIOR. Just on the student

loan point, because I do not want to

leave that without, I think, adding my

own concerns here, all of us, I think,

the gentlewoman from California [Ms.

PELOSI], the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DELAURO], and myself,

we have had hearings and forums in

our districts where we have brought

students in to talk to them. You are

absolutely right, they being stretched

because of the higher cost of tuition

and housing. Fewer and fewer are going

to college today because of that.

Along come the Republicans, and

what do they want to do? They want to

cut out student loan programs in this

country. Basically, what they are basically doing away with is the interest

subsidy program that we have, that if

you take student loan out, you do not

have to pay back until 6 months after

you graduate. You do not have to pay

on the interest. They are saying you

have to start paying from the moment

you take the loan out, and what that

does is it adds to the debt load of these

people, and it will cost them an additional, in my State, over $4,000 a year,

and in some States over $5,000—excuse

me, not a year, $4,000 over the value of

the loan, $4,000 extra dollars. That is

going to discourage literally millions

of kids from going on.

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will

yield on that point, Ms. Maxwell works

with inner city youth, that is just on

this point, and some of us got together,

Ms. DELAURO, the women Members of

Congress, and we had a press conference last week right before Mother’s

Day on this very point, Medicare and

student loans, saying that his was the

anti-family Mother’s Day gift of the

Republicans to America’s mothers, because if you are in your forties and fifties, and many of us in this body are,

and many of the people in America are,

you are worried about the health of

your parents and you are worried about

the education of your children, so these

two issues are such anti-family initiatives on the part of Republicans, sandwiching in——

Mr. BONIOR. Squeezing people.

Ms. PELOSI. Squeezing middle-aged

and middle-income people who certainly want their children to be interested, and now they cannot get the deferred interest, so it makes their options less desirable, and at the same

time, being worried about trying to

help their parents meet their health

care needs. The whole thing is antifamily. That is what is so tragic about

it all, because the Medicare issue is not

about seniors only, it is about the

whole family.

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will

yield, when we are talking about education, we are not just talking about

student loans. Let us be clear about

that. We are talking about massive

cutbacks in virtually every Federal

educational program: Goals 2000, the

trio program, Title I, school-to-work,

student incentive grants, Head Start.

Is there any debate that Head Start has

been enormously successful in allowing

low-income kids to do better in school,

to stay in school, to get a shot at life?

Mr. BONIOR. No debate at all, none

at all. It has been hailed for its value.

Mr. SANDERS. Major cuts there, and

cuts in the safe- and drug-free schools.

Here you have schools all over America

and in the State of Vermont working

extremely hard to keep kids off of

drugs, to keep kids in schools. These

programs are working. They are going

to be cut. What a wonderful idea to

give up on these kids, let them turn to

drugs, and then we spend tens of thousands of dollars keeping them in jail.

Mr. BONIOR. They are doing all of

this, school-to-work, drug-free schools,

student loans, and all the other programs that you talked about, Goals

2000, and they are doing that, they are

cutting these programs, in order to

give a tax cut to the wealthiest people

in America, a tax break to those people

who are making incredible amounts of

money. We are talking about $200,000 a

year.

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will

yield, here is another cut, and it really

refers to his original statement, where
H 5184 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

he talked about a woman who, during

World War II, worked in the assembly

lines in order to defeat Hitler.

During World War II we had millions

of men and women who not only

worked in the assembly lines, they

were fighting all over the world against

fascism. This budget makes significant

cuts in veterans’ programs. The bill

passed by the House Committee on the

Budget would, over a 7-year period, reduce veterans’ programs by $8.3 billion.

The Senate Committee on the Budget,

in fact, would reduce veterans’ benefits

by $15.1 billion.

Among other cuts would be an increase in the prescription drug

copayment from $2 to $8. The House

bill would also reduce the COLA on

veterans’ compensation. It would also

eliminate the Veterans’ Employment

Program under the Job Partnership

Training Act; the disabled outreach

program. Boy, we are getting really

tough.

Mr. BONIOR. The real tragedy of all

this is that people are probably saying

‘‘We have to get control over this deficit. What are you going to do?’’ The

problem is, they are doing this in order

to provide tax cuts for the wealthiest

people in our society, and they do not

touch any of the corporate welfare.

There is over $225 billion worth of

corporate welfare in our Federal budget. They leave it alone. They leave it

alone. They do not touch it. Instead,

they go after veterans, they go after

education programs, they go after

Margaret’s Social Security and her

Medicare.

Ms. DELAURO. We are talking about

veterans and Medicare and veterans’

programs, and I just want to make reference, I have talked about Julius and

Dorothy Ruskin from West Haven, Connecticut, earlier today. I think what

we are all doing when we talk about

the people who are our constituents,

and people who are our friends, as well,

people that we know—these people are

not just names, they are folks that we

know—that they exemplify what is at

stake in the whole debate here.

Let me just say that these are two

wonderful people, Julius and Dottie.

They have given a lifetime of service to

this country. Just on the veterans’

issue, and I say this to my colleague

from Vermont, Julius was an antiaircraft gunner on Iwo Jima during

World War II. He received the Bronze

Star for his service.

These two wonderful people met each

other in New Haven shortly after he

came back from the war, and then they

were married 5 months later. Dottie

worked as a bookkeeper all of her life.

Julius worked for 26 years in the

Pirelli and the Armstrong Tire Company; once again, wherever it was needed in our Nation’s service to deal with

that industry.

I will tell you what Julius has said,

and I quote him, ‘‘These are not the

golden years.’’ They are dealing with

taking Medicare, Social Security, veterans’ benefits from these folks. It is

unfair. These should be the golden

years for Maggie and for Enola and for

the Ruskins, but that is not the case.

I worry about, and I know that my

colleagues here worry about that. Retirement today is often not golden at

all. I think I remember my mother saying one time, she is 81 years old and relies on Social Security and on Medicare, that ‘‘These are not the golden

years but the lead years,’’ and I think

this is what our colleagues on the

other side of the aisle have tried to do

to folks that we represent here tonight.

Mr. BONIOR. The argument they are

making is, they are doing it for their

kids and grandkids so we can get this

budget deficit in order. What they do

not tell you is, they are doing it for the

wealthiest people in our society, giving

them a tax break. They are doing it for

the largest corporations and multinational corporations by making sure

they do not pay taxes. They are doing

it for large corporations by making

sure they do not touch any of the tax

loopholes or tax expenditures that are

out there for them.

The thing that I think drives me to

despair more than anything else is the

fact, as my friend, the gentleman from

Vermont, has just said, they have cut

out—they have cut their nose off in

front of themselves in terms of what is

good for the country. It is the investment in our kids and in their education. It is the best thing we have

done.

When Margaret and her peers and Julius and his peers came home from that

war, this Congress provided them with

the G.I. Bill of Rights. It was one of the

best investments this Nation has ever

seen. People got an education, they

grew intellectually and they grew financially as the country grew through

the fifties and sixties. Here we are in

this budget, cutting back on that opportunity for young people in order to

pay for tax cuts for the very wealthiest

people and the largest multinational

corporations.

b 2245

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will

yield on that last point, because I

think the arguments that our colleagues make about children and their

futures, of course we are all interested

in children, but it would ring a little

truer if they were not putting forth a

$300 billion tax break for the wealthiest

Americans and the corporations. It is

exactly the amount of money they

have to cut out of Medicare to pay for

that, and they had choices.

As you know, there was a debate in

their caucus about whether the tax

break should go up to $95,000 a year or

to $200,000 a year, the tax break, $500

tax break per child, and it went all the

way up to $200,000 a year tax break at

the same time giving a tax break and

cutting education for our children who

need a boost.

But in addition to that, and the gentleman referred to this and I want to

emphasize it again, the Wall Street

Journal the other day said:

Estimates vary on exactly how much the

government gives up in revenue as a result of

corporate tax breaks. But most budget experts say it exceeds $200 billion over 5 years.

The House Budget Committee went as far as

targeting a specific list of $25 billion in tax

breaks over 7 years, but the plan collapsed

last week after it was denounced by the

chairman of the Ways and Means committee.

So, again they had another opportunity to make a little cut, almost a

10- or 11-percent cut in those tax

breaks, and they rejected it again, instead choosing to cut benefits rather

than tax breaks.

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will

yield, the gentlewoman from California

points out that at a time when the

wealthiest people and the largest corporations receive far more welfare than

do the poor in terms of tax breaks and

subsidies, when that corporate welfare

is well documented they did not have

the guts to go after those people, but

they do have the guts to go after the

children, after the homeless, after the

elderly, after the veterans.

There is another area that has not

gotten a whole lot of discussion.

Mr. BONIOR. There is a reason for

that and I think we should talk about

it.

Mr. SANDERS. Let us talk about it.

Mr. BONIOR. Because some of the

people that we are talking about here

today and some of the kids we are talking about do not have the high-powered

lawyers and the lobbyists to represent

them. The corporations do, the

wealthiest people in this country do.

Special interests have had a dramatic

impact on this debate and what is in

this budget and if you ever doubted it,

just look at the tax breaks and who

they go to, just look at how they ignored the tax expenditures and loopholes for the wealthiest corporations in

America and in the world, and just see

what they did to our veterans, to our

seniors, and to our kids.

Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman will

yield, I think it is worth repeating just

how outrageous it was what happened

here a month ago with the repealing of

the alternate minimum tax. And my

colleagues from Michigan mentioned

that. That was the tax put in by Ronald Reagan saying to the richest corporations in this Nation you have an

obligation to pay taxes to this Nation.

No one was complaining about that

tax. Everyone felt it was fair and equitable, and the Republicans repealed it.

It is $16.9 billion over the next 5

years, which says that the richest corporations in this Nation have a zero

tax obligation to this country, and it is

wrong, and that should not happen because they do have the lobbyists and

the special interests that represent

them in this body today more than

they have at any other time in the history of this Nation.

Mr. BONIOR. And they go after a program like School to Work, and the gentleman mentioned it. Most of our kids

do not go on to college, they go to high

school and they elect to get out in the

work world and make a living, as many
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5185

as three-quarters of them do. This

School to Work Program matches kids

in school with the work world and

matches the business people who are

out there and looking for good employees and puts them in contact with the

kids in school, and they develop a bond

and a relationship and schedule and

work habits and education habits to

match what is out in the country. It is

a wonderful program modeled after

something done in Germany that

works very, very well. Everybody is

pleased with it, the community I represent is pleased with it, the community college systems are just enthralled with the opportunity to work

into that system, and of course the

high schools which it affects most are

thrilled about the promise this holds.

And $60 billion you mentioned for the

alternative minimum tax, this is like a

drop in the bucket of that amount and

they wiped it out.

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will

yield, let us recapitulate here: Huge

tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals in America, doing away with corporate taxes for some of the largest

and most profitable corporations in

America, and savage cutbacks for the

most vulnerable in this country.

I think unless one is very naive, I

think we can understand why these

things happen. And they happen for

reasons like an event that took place

in this city some 3 months ago, and I

know my colleagues here remember

the event. The Republican Party held a

little fund raiser, just a little ordinary

dinner that folks came to.

Mr. BONIOR. How much were the

tickets?

Mr. SANDERS. I think $1,000 a plate

with gratuities included, and they provided an extra cup of coffee for free.

Ms. DELAURO. I believe it was

$50,000 a plate.

Mr. SANDERS. That was for another

one; that was for the right-wing television network, but this was for poor

folks, only $1,000 a plate. And I think

at the end of that night they walked

away with $11 million.

Now why would the largest corporations in America and the wealthiest

people in this country contribute to

the party? And they doing it because

they believe in the Democratic spirit

and they just wanted to get involved?

Maybe, but I do not think so. I think

that there are very smart people who

made an investment. They invested in

the Republican Party, and the last several months we have seen why they invested. It is a very good investment to

buy a ticket for a thousand bucks at a

dinner and find out your corporation

does not have to pay anything in taxes,

or if you are making $200,000 a year

your are going to pay $11,000 less in

taxes.

But, interestingly enough, the average working persons did not go to that

dinner, and you know what the average

working person got? Among many

other devastating cuts, the Republican

proposal cuts back, eliminates, not

cuts back, eliminates unemployment

insurance-extended benefits. Many

areas all over this country where unemployment is very, very high, we

have recessions, things get bad, what

the Republicans proposal does is make

it impossible for a worker to get

unemployement after 13 weeks.

What do you do then? Well, how come

they go cut and the rich got tax

breaks? Maybe it has something to do

that tens of millions of dollars that are

now flooding into the Republican Party

from some of the wealthiest people in

America.

Mr. BONIOR. I thank my colleague.

Ms. PELOSI. I would like to talk

about what this means in California in

terms of giving these tax breaks to the

wealthiest, cutting Medicare benefits

to our seniors in California $3.6 million. Medicare beneficiaries will lose in

the year 2002 alone, in that year alone

$11.8 billion, in that 1 year alone. And

between now and then the figure is

$37.8 billion over 7 years.

That is devastating. That means they

are paying more out of pocket for fewer

services. This whole thing is about values. Who do we tax, what do we spend

it on? That is the budget debate, and I

do not think it is a statement of our

country’s values, and most people in

the country’s values to say we would

rather give more tax breaks to people

who have so much on the backs of our

poorest folks.

I want to say something before you

yield to Congresswoman DELAURO. She

and Congressman DAVID OBEY have

been the two champions, and there are

others who work with you on protecting LIHEAP funding. ROSA, I do not

want to get in ROSA DELAURO’s way

when somebody goes after LIHEAP. It

is important to seniors and people in

her State and she has been an incredible champion on that issue.

Ms. DELAURO. We have cold winters

in Connecticut; you have them in

Michigan and in Vermont.

Mr. BONIOR. We have a wonderful

LIHEAP program in Michigan. The

utility companies work very hard.

Ms. DELAURO. They do.

Mr. BONIOR. They are pleased with

it and it helps literally tens of thousands of low-income seniors who would

have no other way to pay their bills.

Ms. DELAURO. I just wanted to

make a comment, and this was in the

New York Times on May 2, it says let’s

separate the facts from the political

claims and counterclaims.

As a practical matter the Federal budget

cannot be balanced the way the Republicans

are talking about in 7 years as the Republicans promised without deep cuts in projected spending for Medicare.

They would like to hide this fact, but

it is the case.

Cuts of this magnitude would raise

the cost of health insurance to millions

of retirees or reduce the services available to them. And a quote from Stanley Colender, director, Federal budget

policy at Price Waterhouse, an accounting firm that said, ‘‘realistically

there is no way to come close to balancing the budget without cutting

Medicare, Medicare benefits.’’ Our Republican colleagues are trying to hide

the fact that they are cutting benefits

for tax breaks. No one has suggested

that there are not reforms to be made

in Medicare, and we can do that. We

can deal with the fraud in the system

and we can do some other things, but

they cut first and reform second.

I tell you, take a look at it and listen

to what they are talking about, what

has happened to our priorities in this

country when the majority in this body

is putting the whole issue of the corporate tax interests, those loopholes,

those breaks ahead of the care and the

health care needs of the people that we

have talked about tonight and the people that we represent, people like Julius and Dottie Ruskin. I think that is

the basic argument, what the Republicans have done, and they do not want

to own up to it.

Mr. BONIOR. Somebody on this floor,

I think it was DICK DURBIN who gave an

eloquent speech this afternoon and he

talked about a constituent who was I

believe 72 years old and who gave so

much to this country, and his work and

his service to this country in time of

war, and basically DICK was saying

that this is really an American hero,

and I think we would all agree this

evening the four people we have talked

about here specifically are really

American heroes. They were there

when their country needed them on the

homefront as well as the battlefront.

They have been pillars of their communities. They are wonderful people, lovely neighbors, and for us to treat them

in their twilight years in such a shabby

way in this budget I think speaks to

what you said, Ms. PELOSI, in our values system. What is our values system?

The budget is about our value system

that expresses who we are, what we believe in, and what we are willing to

stand up and fight for, and we saw

today who they are willing to stand

and fight for. They have fought for the

wealthiest folks in our society at the

expense of our veterans, at the expense

of these four lovely people and the expense of our many young people who

are trying to get an education to make

a go of it.

So I thank my colleagues for participating tonight and I yield to them.

Ms. PELOSI. I would like to make

one point, because I know the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BONIOR] has

been a leader in fighting for real health

care reform in this body. Congresswoman DELAURO said we do have to

make some reforms in the Medicare

system. That does not mean we lessen

the benefits and increase the

copayments on the beneficiaries. But

we do have to make some change in the

delivery and the financing of health

care reform. President Clinton had a

proposal for real health care reform.

We have to have that. That is the way

we are going to stop the rising cost of
H 5186 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 17, 1995

health care entitlements and the impact on the national budget. We all

want to be fiscally responsible, reduce

the deficit, have Medicare and quality

health care for all Americans. But we

cannot do that the way the Republicans are proposing. And we want to

keep our people healthy.

And just in closing I want to point

out one other cut they are making, billions of dollars in cuts in the National

Institutes of Health, where we do the

breast cancer research, all kinds of

prostate cancer research, AIDS research, you name it, any illness that

you can name that has gotten attention: Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease,

the rest of it, so in every way that you

would measure the health and wellbeing of a population, they have undermined and attacked in this.

b 2300

And I hope the American people will

respond appropriately.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman

would yield, I just very briefly say this:

Today we heard from our Republican

friends that they had a mandate. Let

us not forget that in the November

elections, 62 percent of the people did

not vote, did not vote.

We can turn this around. We can win

this fight. We can stop these devastating cuts and this transfer of wealth to

the upper-income people. We can do it,

but we cannot do it with Members of

Congress alone. We are going to need

the help of millions and millions of

American citizens who are fighting

hard to maintain their standard of living.

So if you do not think it is right that

we give huge tax breaks to the rich and

cut back on a zillion programs that affect the children and the old and working people and students, if you think

that is wrong, we are going to need

your help.

So let us stand up together and let us

fight back. Let us get a little justice in

America.

Ms. DELAURO. Just one comment. I

was struck today by a letter that I was

shown by another Michigander, the

gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. RIVERS] our colleague, and she showed me

a letter that she received from a senior

citizen in her district about the cuts,

and it was a very poignant comment

that this individual made.

Lynn showed it to me, and she said,

‘‘Read this.’’ And the woman said,

‘‘Maybe I have lived too long.’’ An indictment of our values and what this

Nation and this country is all about

when this woman writes and says,

‘‘Maybe I have lived too long,’’ because, ‘‘you are cutting my Medicare,

my Social Security,’’ and we are providing tax breaks for the richest in this

country. It was a sad commentary, and

I think one that struck me very hard,

and I think says a lot about what this

debate is about.

Mr. BONIOR. Let me just end with a

little story to follow up what BERNIE

just said about getting involved.

I am always reminded of that story

about Senator BILL BRADLEY, who was

at a dinner one evening. The Senator

was eating. The waiter came by and

put a pat of butter on the bread plate.

The Senator turned to the waiter and

said, ‘‘Can I have two pats of butter,

please?’’ The waiter said, ‘‘Sorry, one

pat per person.’’ On hearing this, the

MC for the evening gets up and walks

over to the waiter, and he said, ‘‘Maybe

you do not know who this is. This is

Senator BILL BRADLEY, NBA basketball

star, Rhodes Scholar, maybe future

President of the United States.’’ The

waiter turned to the MC and says,

‘‘Well, maybe you don’t know who I

am.’’ And the MC says, ‘‘Well, in fact,

I don’t know who you are. Who are

you?’’ The waiter said, ‘‘I am the guy

who controls the butter.’’

Well, the point is that everybody

controls a piece of the butter, a piece

of the action, but you have got to

make your voices known, and you have

got to speak up and you have got to be

clear and articulate and passionate

about it, because when you are, then

people like Margaret and the wonderful

people we have talked about today will

have the decent break in our society

they were promised.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. F

f OX

of Pennsylvania). Under the Speaker’s

announced policy of May 12, 1995, the

gentleman from California [Mr. RIGGS]

is recognized for 60 minutes.

[Mr. RIGGS addressed the House. His

remarks will appear hereafter in the

Extensions of Remarks.]

the Speaker’s announced policy of May

12, 1995, the gentleman from Louisiana

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

f[Mr. FIELDS] is recognized for 60 minutes.

[Mr. FIELDS addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

By unanimous consent, leave of abLEAVE OF ABSENCE

fsence was granted to:

Mr. BONO (at the request of Mr.

ARMEY) for today, on account of recovery from surgery.

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois (at the request of Mr. GEPHARDT) for today, on

account of personal business.

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 Ms. PELOSI) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mr. STUPAK, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. LIPINSKI, for 5 minutes, today.

Ms. KAPTUR, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. OWENS, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. DEFAZIO, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. BECERRA, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, for 5 minutes,

today.

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

Mr. NORWOOD, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. BROWNBACK, for 5 minutes, today.

Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee, for 5 minutes, today.

By unanimous consent, permission to

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

frevise and extend remarks was granted

to:

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

Mr. ACKERMAN.

Mr. STARK in two instances.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts.

Mr. COLEMAN.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota.

Mrs. KENNELLY.

Mr. SCHUMER.

Mr. LIPINSKI.

Mr. ROSE.

Mrs. MALONEY in three instances.

Mr. STUPAK.

Ms. WATERS.

Mr. LAFALCE.

Mr. KANJORSKI.

Mr. BISHOP.

Ms. SLAUGHTER.

Mr. BONIOR.

Mr. COLEMAN.

Ms. FURSE.

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ.

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

extraneous matter:)

Mr. PACKARD.

Mr. MARTINI in two instances.

Mr. MOORHEAD.

Mr. SHAW in two instances.

Mrs. CHENOWETH.

Mr. SCHIFF in two instances.

Mr. S

Ms. D

MITH

ELAURO. Mr. Speaker, I move

ADJOURNMENT

of New Jersey.

fthat the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o’clock and 2 minutes

p.m.), under its previous order, the

House adjourned until tomorrow,

Thursday, May 18, 1995, at 9 a.m.