Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield myself, on behalf of the ranking member of the Budget Committee, 1 minute.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask 1 additional minute.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I think we are swapping back and forth. I have 20 minutes and then the Senator has 15 minutes. I think that is correct.

Mr. FORD. I was pretty close to it then, was I not, Madam President? I will have another day and another time, and I want to talk about education and the cuts in that. I hope I will be able to have maybe 10 minutes then just to talk about what the Senator from Pennsylvania was talking about, our children. We want our children to be educated, and if they are not educated, they will never make the middle class. So I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair for her patience. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. Madam President, while the Senator from Pennsylvania is still in the Chamber, I would like to make a couple remarks. I have been in this Senate for 21 years now. In all of the hot debates, in all of the effort that is made here, I have never heard or seen the office of the President of the United States degraded like it has been here today. Never in 21 years have I heard Gerald Ford called Jerry, Jimmy Carter called Jimmy, Ronald Reagan called Ron, George Bush called George, and I have never heard a First Lady called by her first name. I think it is time we have some respect for the office if we do not have respect for the individual who holds it. Now, when the Senator says ``Bill'' here, we have never done that. The Senator can smile if he wants to, but there is some decorum by people who have been here for a long time. This is an institution that has respect for the office if not for the individual. I would hope that the Members on the other side would be a little careful about the remarks they make and how they put forward their effort in this debate. So I just call attention to the Senate that I hope from now on it would be ``the President.'' I have never heard the majority leader in the Chamber refer to his party's President by his first name. I never heard him refer to the Democratic Party's President by his first name. It has always been ``the President.'' So I would hope that we would refrain from using the First Lady's first name in the Chamber and that we be very careful about that. Madam President, I hope that I say this constructively because I do respect the office of the President, even though another party from my choosing would be the occupant. I felt it important that I say that. Madam President, what a difference 6 months has made. And I go back to November 6, 1994. ``President Clinton and Vice President Gore are resorting to scare tactics, falsely accusing the Republicans of secret plans to cut Medicare benefits.'' That was from the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, quoted in the Washington Post of November 6. The outrage, as far as I am concerned, is the Democrat's big lie campaign that the Contract With America would require huge Medicare cuts. It would not. Haley Barbour, Republican National Committee Chair, CNN's Late Edition, November 6, 1994. The GOP budget speaks for itself. The GOP Senate budget plan includes chairman of the Republican Party said, and he has been in the meetings here. He has attended the meetings when this budget was developed and the statements were planned. He said it is a big lie campaign. Six months later, it was the truth. The GOP House budget plan includes $286 billion in Medicare cuts, and the House budget includes and the Senate budget provides funds for GOP tax cuts that would give $20,000 a year to the wealthiest Americans. I heard the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania say that this will reduce interest rates; that things are going to get better. Well, in 1993, we struggled, and if I recall, after we passed that budget bill without a Republican vote, 50-50, in the Senate, and the Vice President broke the tie, the Fed had to increase interest rates six or seven times in order to cool off the economy because we reduced the deficit by $600 billion. We reduced or eliminated 300 programs. And how many Republican votes did we get? None. Zilch. Zip. None. And we did pretty well. When you say that we have not done the right thing, I think you have to go back and look at the 1993 votes. And if you also want to say something about 6 months later, there was a Congressman in the House that said it very well. ``If we had come out with this budget in our contract, they wouldn't have voted us in.'' You would not have been elected. At least, he was honest. He was honest in making his statement. Madam President, last year, the Census Bureau reported the widest rich-poor gap since the Bureau began keeping track in 1947. Business Week magazine suggested that ``If this trend persists, it could tarnish America's image as the land of opportunity.'' In fact, it was a Republican strategist who said, ``This stratifying starts to make us into a different country. It goes to the American notion of fairness.'' And that is exactly why, when Democrats hammered out an economic plan last Congress, we made sure it not only dramatically cut the deficit, but also helped create an environment for strong growth, proven by the interest rates that we were called on to pay and increased by the Fed. We provided resources so all Americans--and I underscore ``all''--could obtain the skills necessary to compete in a global economy. We accomplished those goals amidst the first investment-led recovery with low inflation in 30 years. Today, Senate Republicans have put forth a budget that also looks to eliminate the deficit. But the similarities, Madam President, stop there. While Democrats sought to put in place an economic plan to further empower the hard-working families of this country and their children, the Republican plan appears to be driven almost entirely by the desire to cut taxes for America's most well off. Middle-class Americans understand that balancing the budget requires the Henry Clay tactic--compromise, mutual sacrifice, negotiated hurt, as Henry Clay would have said. But while they are being forced to accept the biggest rate hike in Medicare history, those Americans making $300,000 or more are walking off with a $20,000 a year tax cut, low-income Americans are being forced to pay more taxes. While low-income Americans are being forced to pay more taxes when the earned-income tax credit is slashed, those millionaire Benedict Arnolds spit on the flag, renounce their citizenship in the United States--we tried to prevent it and we could not because the votes on the other side would not let us--so they can get out of paying U.S. taxes. As we say down in western Kentucky, ``Something about that ain't right.'' And while middle-class Americans are being forced to pay thousands more to send their children to college, loophole after loophole remains intact for America's richest. There is not a single Senator here who supports the status quo--not a single Senator. But on this side of the aisle, we do not want to see America's image as the land of opportunity tarnished. We want a budget that is balanced, not one that sends middle-class Americans home emptyhanded so that the richest Americans can pocket a $20,000 a year goody. While the 1 percent of Americans are trying to figure out how to spend their extra 20,000 bucks, middle-class Americans are trying to figure out how to care for their elderly, sick parents when Medicare is slashed by over $250 billion. While the 1 percent of Americans are trying to figure out how to spend their extra 20,000 bucks, middle- class Americans will be trying to figure out if their dreams to send their children to college are impossible to obtain. And while the 1 percent of Americans are trying to figure out how to spend their extra 20,000 bucks, those hard-working families struggling to become middle class will try to figure out how to do so now that the earned-income tax credit that they enjoy is slashed and their taxes are raised. Medicare: What are the cuts really for? Madam President, there are 585,000 Medicare beneficiaries in my State of Kentucky. I hope many of them will follow this debate, follow it closely, so we can consider the Republican proposal to cut Medicare by $256 billion over the next 7 years. I hope many of them will try to figure out what those cuts are really for. Why are they in this budget? Why $256 billion? There are $170 billion in proposed tax cuts in this Republican budget, although they have tried to hide them in something called a tax reduction reserve fund. If these tax cuts are anything like we have seen from the House of Representatives, we know that they will primarily benefit well-off Americans with high incomes. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle deny that Medicare cuts are being used to offset these tax cuts for upper income Americans. They have suggested that the Medicare trust fund is going broke and that we have a crisis. They have also suggested they do not know what specific steps should be taken to make the trust fund solvent, and that we should set up a commission--a commission--to recommend changes in the Medicare program to make it solvent. I hope Republicans are prepared to answer the questions the 585,000 Medicare beneficiaries in my State have for them. First, if we cut Medicare by $256 billion, how much longer will the trust fund be healthy? Answer that. We have yet to hear the answer. If we are truly reacting to a crisis, then what will $256 billion in cuts do to affect the crisis? If the proponents of these $256 billion in cuts do not know the answer, this would appear to be further evidence Medicare cuts are being made to offset tax cuts for upper income Americans. Second, and more puzzling, if Republicans are cutting Medicare to avoid a crisis in the trust fund, and if Republicans do not know yet what specific steps to take until a commission tells us, then how do they already know the specific amount to cut? If we need a commission to tell us how to make the trust fund solvent, do we not need to add up the changes they recommend before we know the total amount of cuts? How can we know that $256 billion in cuts are needed to make Medicare programs solvent? It sounds suspicious to me and a lot of Americans. Either Republicans already know what Medicare changes they will make and they will not tell us, or $256 billion is simply the number they needed to offset the tax cuts. I hope the 585,000 Medicare beneficiaries in my State will hear answers to some of these questions. Madam President, we have a Medicare crisis today and we had an even greater Medicare crisis in 1993 and 1994. The Medicare beneficiaries in my State want to know where the Republicans were then. In 1993, the Medicare part A trust fund was projected to go broke in 1999, only 6 years out. Let us not forget how tough some of those decisions in the 1993 deficit reduction package were. More than $1 out of every $5 in deficit reduction in 1993 went to shore up Medicare. We cut $56 billion in spending for Medicare over 5 years in the 1993 deficit reduction package. These cuts included $23.3 billion in payments to hospitals, $15.7 billion in payments to doctors, $9.1 billion in payments involving both hospitals and doctors. These were tough cuts, and we did not get a vote from the other side of the aisle to make those cuts. We also lifted the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax which funds [[Page S6891]] Medicare part A, and increased the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxes on those making over $44,000 a year. A tough choice, but we dedicated every penny of increase of revenues to Medicare. They went to Medicare. These were painful changes, hard votes. We made them; they did not. Consider together they shored up the Medicare Program by more than $100 billion over 5 years, and how many Republican votes did we get to help shore up Medicare? Not one. Zilch. Zero. In 1993, when Medicare was projected to run out of money by 1999, how many Republicans said, ``There's a Medicare crisis?'' Not one. Zilch. Zero. In 1994, when health care reform was being considered and Medicare was projected to run out of money by 2001, how many Republicans said there was a crisis in Medicare? None. In fact, last year, many went out of their way to stress that there was no crisis--no crisis--in health care. More than $1 out of every $6 spent in this country in health care comes from Medicare. In fact, over 40 percent of health care expenditures nationwide comes from the public sector, and this is primarily Medicare and Medicaid. When the Medicare trustees' report came out earlier this year, it actually extended by 1 year the projections of when the Medicare trust fund would run out of money. Yet, my Republican colleagues, none of whom recognized the Medicare crisis in 1993 and many of whom denied the existence of any health care crisis last year, seized upon the trustees' report to justify now a crisis, a crisis worthy of $256 billion in Medicare cuts. I have 585,000 Medicare beneficiaries in my State. They should look behind these numbers. There are a lot of unanswered questions. How do we know from reading the trustees' report that $256 billion in cuts are needed? Let us take a look at what the report says. Part A pays for inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing facility care, home health care, and hospice care. Most Americans 65 or older are automatically entitled to part A protection. There are over 36 million beneficiaries nationwide, and Medicare part A is financed by the Federal hospital insurance trust fund. According to the trustees' report, at the end of 1995, the part A trust fund will have an all-time record balance of $134 billion, which will grow slightly in 1996. However, the balance will decline, thereafter, to the point where the fund becomes dangerously close to being insolvent by the year 2002. The trustees also reported on Medicare part B. Part B of Medicare is voluntary. It pays for doctors' services, other medical and health services, like laboratory and outpatient services, and some home health care services not covered by part A. Part B is financed by the supplemental medical insurance trust fund. According to the trustees' report, this part B trust fund will have a balance of $26 billion in the year 2002, even larger than the balance today and an all-time record. So if there is a trust fund crisis, it is in part A. Yet, we do not know where the $256 billion in Medicare cuts in the Republican budget will come from. Do our Republican colleagues view a crisis in part B, as well? How will the $256 billion in cuts be allocated among part A and part B? Madam President, I do not know what we need a commission for, but if we are to have one, this raises even more questions: What will the instructions to the commission be? Could the Medicare crisis commission recommend tax increases, raising the current payroll tax used to fund part A? If so, are our Republican colleagues saying they will support those tax increases? What if the commission recommends less than $256 billion in Medicare cuts? Will Congress be required to cut $256 billion from Medicare anyway to offset the tax cuts for the very rich and the Benedict Arnolds in the Republican plan? Madam President, how do our Republican colleagues know that $256 billion in Medicare cuts are needed? They are very precise in this budget. They are very precise. Our Republican colleagues tell us Medicare is in a crisis. They tell us it needs to grow by 7.1 percent per year--not 7 percent, not 8 percent, but 7.1 percent per year. They tell us we need to cut Medicare exactly $12 billion next year, then $22 billion, then $27 billion, then $36 billion, then $44 billion, then $53 billion and, finally, $62 billion in the year 2002. These are very precise levels of Medicare cuts year by year, yet we need a commission to tell us what to do about Medicare. Let me talk a minute, if I have any time left, about education.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. FORD. I asked the Chair a question.

Mr. FORD. So it is not a requirement, then, that she reveal what amendments she would like to have entered? She may have a dozen and reduce it to six?

Mr. FORD. That is your prerogative. That is your prerogative.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, point of information.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. FORD. Does the Senator from Washington retain her own right to make her own statement and to offer all amendments without trying to reveal that in advance, and not being able to get the floor?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I understand there might be some Senators leaving at an early hour tomorrow and it might not be appropriate to have these votes when they would miss so many. I wonder if, after cloture, we may have one or two and that might end it for the day, but I see the heads are shaking, so you do not want me to know that tonight.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the distinguished acting floor leader yield for a question?

Mr. FORD. Since he is the floor manager of the bill, regardless of whether cloture is voted tomorrow or not, what amendments and how many would he think we might have? Does he have a ballpark figure? There are a good many amendments that have been filed. I wonder. Most of them are germane.

Mr. FORD. That might be a little hard to do, call them up and vote on them or move to table.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] is absent because of death in the family.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] is absent because of death in the family. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] would vote ``yea.''