[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 143 (Thursday, September 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8944-H8950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                 THE MEDICARE PRESERVATION ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today the American public was expected to 
receive the details of the Republicans' plan to slash Medicare, but the 
Republicans seems to be delaying further, and really, we do not know 
when the specific plans are going to be released. I have to say, Mr. 
Speaker, that I was outraged to find out how few details we were 
actually given in the document that was presented today by the 
Republican leadership. I have a copy of it here, the Medicare 
Preservation Act of 1995.
  We do know that we are talking about cutting $270 billion out of 
Medicare, and we know that that is going to have a devastating impact 
on senior citizens, because it is the largest Medicare cut in the 
history of this country, but to this day and at this hour, with only, I 
think, about a week left before there is supposed to be a 1-day hearing 
before the Committee on Ways and Means on the Medicare changes, we 
still do not have the details of the plan.
  I think it is really unfortunate, because the seniors that I know 
that are in my district are demanding to know how this cut is going to 
affect them. They are not buying into this Republican smokescreen about 
reforming Medicare. The fact of the matter is that Medicare is not 
broke, it has worked very well for the last 30 years in providing 
health care and good quality health care for most senior citizens, and 
all that we really have is a Republican plan to essentially take $270 
billion out of the Medicare program to finance largely a tax cut for 
the wealthier Americans.
  I do not think it is fair. I do not think it is fair that the senior 
citizens of this country should have to take such a large brunt, if you 
will, of the effort to provide a tax cut, or of the effort to provide 
deficit reduction.
  One of the bases that the Republicans are using for saying that this 
large cut is necessary is that they claim that within 7 years Medicare 
will be insolvent. They base that on a trustees' report that came out 
this year, and we get trustees' reports from Medicare on an annual 
basis.
  What they fail to point out is that historically there has not been 
as much as 7 years outlays, if you will, for Medicare funding. 
Oftentimes it has only been 1 or 2 years before Medicare is insolvent. 
The reason for that is because this Congress traditionally did not want 
to leave a lot of money available for Medicare in future years because 
of the fear that it would be raided by provides, and that hospitals or 
doctors or other health care providers would say to themselves ``Gee, 
there is this large pot of money out there, so we had just better 
charge more for our services.''
  There is no reason in the world to think that because for 7 years we 
have enough money to pay for Medicare services and for health care for 
seniors, that somehow that means that the system needs to be radically 
changed. It does not. They are only proposing this cut, this huge cut, 
in Medicare because they want to use it to pay for a tax cut, again, 
mostly for well-to-do Americans.
  This plan that was released today by the Republican leadership, and 
it is not a plan, it unfortunately does not provide much information at 
all; it does not tell us how this $270 billion is going to be 
implemented, this cut, cut it does have some pretty scary things in it 
which I would like to relate, if I could, during my time here this 
evening.
  First of all, with regard to the part B premium, which is the part of 
the Medicare Program that pays for doctors' bills, essentially, the one 
that seniors now basically voluntarily contribute to out of their 
pocket, but of course most seniors use it in order to finance their 
payments for doctors, for their physicians, the part B premium 
essentially 

[[Page H 8945]]
under this proposed plan would increase to about $93 per person by the 
end of the 7 years in 2002.
                              {time}  1645

  Earlier this week I think it was, I think it was on Sunday, the 
Speaker said that seniors would have to pay $7 more per month for the 
part B premium, which translates into $84 more per year for part B for 
their doctor's services. He said that as if that was a glorious thing, 
that they were only going to have to pay this extra $7 a month or $84 a 
year.
  I would like to mention first of all that many seniors are struggling 
with what they currently pay for their part B premium and really cannot 
afford to spend another $7 a month. They are on fixed incomes, they do 
not have anywhere else to go.
  I talk to people on a regular basis when I am back in my district who 
say, ``Gee, I've budgeted for the month and I've only budgeted with 
some play of $5,'' so if you talk about a $7 increase, that is a lot. 
However, after making that statement on Sunday about the $7 increase, 
the Speaker came back on Tuesday and said that it was going to be about 
$32 per month, or $384 per year, in effect doubling the seniors 
Medicare part B premiums. Well, if we are talking about $32 more per 
month, and I think it is probably going to be even more than that when 
we finally get the figures, we are essentially talking about doubling 
the amount that seniors have to pay out of pocket just for part B, just 
for their doctor's services.
  Some people may say again, ``Well, gee, that doesn't seem like a lot 
of money,'' but if you are a senior citizen, many of whom make $8,000, 
$9,000 a year, the majority of whom probably could not afford that $32 
a month, and keep in mind that this doubling of their premium is only 
happening in order to finance a tax cut, because if we look at the 
amount of money, the $270 billion that is being taken out of Medicare, 
you could just put that right next to the $245 billion in tax cuts that 
are being proposed and see how they almost translate directly.
  The other thing that was mentioned again in this very skimpy outline 
which does not really tell us how they are going to achieve this $270 
billion in savings is what I call means testing--basically an income-
related proposal whereby if you are above a certain income, either for 
a single person or for a married couple, that you would increasingly, 
depending upon your income, have to pay more for your part B premium to 
the point where at a certain income level, you would pay for the whole 
thing, essentially phasing out part B for some individuals.
  I think although some may say, ``Well, what's the difference if some 
people who are in the higher income categories have to pay for the 
whole cost of their Medicare premium? Why should I worry about that? I 
don't care. They've got a lot of money. What is it to me?''
  I maintain that that is totally wrong. A contract was made 30 years 
ago when Medicare was passed in this Congress and signed by the 
President which said that if over the years while you were working you 
paid into Medicare, that when you retired, when you got to be the age 
of 65, that Medicare was going to be available for you. To suggest that 
people at a certain income level should have to pay almost 100 percent 
of the cost of their premium I think is basically breaking the contract 
that was made when Medicare was passed 30 years ago.
  I would also point out that we already have means testing when you 
pay into Medicare. In other words, you have been paying into Medicare 
over the years based on your income. So if your income is higher, you 
have been paying more. All of a sudden now we are going to have another 
means test when you try to take advantage--and you are over 65--of the 
Medicare Program.
  It is also wrong because we are going down the slippery slope here 
now. We start means testing Medicare and maybe under the Republican 
proposal I think it is $75,000 a year where you start having to pay 
extra and ultimately it gets phased out completely and you have to pay 
the whole cost. Well, today it is $75,000, that is budget driven. But 
in this Congress--and I have seen it happen before--tomorrow, next 
year, it will be $50,000, year after that, it will be $40,000, $35,000, 
eventually for budget reasons you will see that that amount will be 
reduced and reduced and reduced and more and more senior citizens will 
end up having to pay more and more money to pay for their Medicare and 
to pay for their health care program.
  The other thing that is in this document which is also very 
interesting, my biggest concern really, other than the additional cost 
that seniors are going to have to pay under this Republican plan when 
we finally get it, is that a lot of senior citizens are going to be 
forced into HMO's or managed care.
  Right now if a senior citizen has a doctor or goes
   to a certain hospital because it is in the vicinity of where they 
live, Medicare guarantees that that hospital or that physician will be 
reimbursed. It is called a fee-for-service plan. They choose the 
physician, they choose the hospital, and Medicare reimburses most of 
the cost.

  But what I believe is going to happen under this plan, and again for 
budgetary money reasons in order to finance this tax cut, is that more 
and more seniors are going to be forced into HMO's where they cannot 
choose their doctor or they cannot choose the hospital that may be 
close to them, and they have to go into a managed care plan or an HMO 
where those choices are made by others.
  That is a very terrible thing for a lot of senior citizens, first of 
all because a lot of them have used the same physician for years and 
they are confident that that physician can care for them. Also, many of 
them live close to a hospital that they like and they do not want to 
have to go to a hospital that is 15 or 20 minute or maybe even an hour, 
who knows how far away if they are living in a rural area.
  Well, in this plan, again it is not clear what is in this plan, but 
in this plan, the suggestion is that there will be fixed dollar 
payments to HMO's. In other words, that if they choose to opt for an 
HMO or a managed care system, then the Government will pay a flat 
amount to that HMO or to that managed care system. It is not at all 
clear whether or not that HMO can charge more to the senior for a 
better, more comprehensive health care plan.
  It is almost similar to the voucher. The Republican document does not 
suggest that they are moving to a voucher system. But if they, in fact, 
give a flat rate to the HMO and then say that the HMO has to take what 
the Government gives them, and the HMO says, ``that is not enough to 
pay for the cost of the traditional care that we provide, so we are 
going to have to provide less quality care or reduce the amount of 
doctors, whoever participates, but if you pay an extra $1,000 or if you 
pay an extra $1,500 a year, we will give you a better plan,'' then in 
effect we have created a situation where the seniors have to pay money 
out of pocket to get a better traditional quality health care plan that 
they are used to.
  Again, it is not clear what exactly the Republicans have in mind. 
Hopefully, at some point over the next few weeks we will get some more 
details about exactly what this means.
  The other thing that is in this document that is a very dangerous 
precedent, which again is likely to force many low-income senior 
citizens into HMO's or managed care systems where they do not have a 
choice of doctor or hospital, is that the proposal does away with 
Medicaid paying for supplemental insurance. A lot of senior citizens 
have what they call MediGap. Medicaid pays the MediGap so that they do 
not have to pay out of pocket for the extra coverage that they get 
under MediGap because Medicare does not pay for that coverage.
  Seniors are not going to be allowed to use their Medicaid to pay for 
that supplemental health insurance coverage for items that are not 
covered by Medicare. What that means is that low-income people will be 
forced into HOMO's, low-income seniors, because they will not be able 
to pay that extra MediGap insurance in order to continue with a fee-
for-service system where they choose their own doctor or their own 
hospital. They will literally be forced into an HMO or a managed care 
system, without a choice of physicians or choice of hospital, because 

[[Page H 8946]]
there is no one to make up for that premium for the supplemental 
insurance.
  There are a lot of very sinister ways, I believe, when we finally get 
the details of this plan where I think it is going to be increasingly 
evident that many seniors, if not all, who do not have extra money are 
going to be forced into an HMO or a managed care system where they do 
not have a choice of their physician or for the hospital that they 
want.
  Again, and I have to stress that over and over again, the plan or the 
outline that was presented today by the Speaker and by the Republican 
leadership talks about $270 billion in cuts but does not tell us where 
those cuts are going to come from. We do not know whether the majority 
of it is going to come from reduced payments to health care providers 
like the hospitals or the doctors.
  We know that probably about $80 billion is going to come from these 
increased premiums that I talked about before for Medicare part B, 
which will essentially double the premiums that seniors are going to 
have to pay for their physician's care. But we do not know where the 
rest of the moneys come from, the other $200 billion or so. Is it going 
to come from reduced payments to hospitals and to physicians? If
 that is the case, we are going to see a number of things happen.
  If you cut into the amount of the payments that are made to the 
hospitals or the physicians, you are going to see a lot of physicians 
who will not take Medicare patients anymore, and so access to doctors 
is going to be limited, and you are going to see a lot of hospitals 
that are either going to close because they depend too much on Medicare 
to finance their operations or simply cut back on services in various 
ways. They can cut back by not providing certain community services, by 
not providing certain equipment. In my own district, we went during the 
August break to Monmouth Medical Center which is in my hometown of Long 
Branch. They depend on Medicare for the majority of their revenue. If 
they have a significant decrease in the amount of money that they are 
reimbursed for Medicare payments, they are probably going to have to 
cut back on staff, cut back on community services, cut back on clinics, 
cut back on all types of things. Some of the hospitals are in such a 
critical situation in New Jersey, we have identified, I think, through 
the New Jersey Hospital Association about 76 hospitals that are put on 
a critical list, they are so dependent on Medicare and Medicaid 
payments that if the amount that they got is reduced significantly, 
some of them will definitely close and we will see a situation where 
people who have traditionally relied on a local hospital will not even 
be able to find the hospital because it will not be there anymore and 
they are going to have to go elsewhere. Even if you take this $270 
billion cut and you subtract the $80 billion that is going to be paid 
for on the backs of seniors because they are doubling their part B 
premiums, and even if you took, say, another 100 or 200, I do not know 
how many billion in reducing the amount of payments that go to 
hospitals and the physicians, there is still about a $90 billion what I 
call black hole that is left totally undecided in this plan, because 
essentially what the plan says is that we will figure out between now 
and 2002 whether whatever we come up with works in terms of saving 
money and if it does not, they we will just do some sort of across-the-
board cut, and that will probably mean increased co-payments, 
deductibles, even less provider fees, whatever. Even though they 
suggest that they are not going to increase copayments and are not 
going to increase deductibles, the bottom line is that with this huge 
black hole that is not financed in any way as part of this plan, I have 
no doubt that they will be forced ultimately to come up with increased 
deductibles or copayments as a way of trying to finance this overall 
program.
  I guess the saddest thing for me is that all this is happening so 
quickly and without any input from the public. Back in April when the 
Republican budget was adopted in this House and in the Senate, we were 
told that Medicare was going to be slashed by $270 billion and that was 
going to be used either for deficit reduction or for the tax cut. 
April, May, June, July, August, it is now September, I do not know how 
many months that is, 4 or 5 months later, we still have no plan. Yet 
next Thursday in the Committee on Ways and Means or soon thereafter 
there is going to be just one day of hearings on whatever plan we 
finally get, one day for the American people and for Congress and for 
all the people that are concerned about the health care delivery system 
to review whatever plan we finally get between now and that 1 day when 
those hearings are held in the Committee on Ways and Means.
  It is totally unjustifiable for the Republican leadership to come 
forward with this stealth plan, after talking about these cuts now for 
5 or 6 months, to come up with the implementation at the last minute 
and expect the public and the Congress to digest it and vote on it in 1 
day with such a little period of time to review what this is all about.
                              {time}  1700

  I think that that is the biggest, the cruelest hoax, if you will, 
that is to be placed out in this House and on the American people. This 
is such an important program that affects senior citizens and all those 
that depend upon senior citizens.
  Remember, it is not just seniors, but all their dependents that would 
have to help them pay for the extra care or care for them if they are 
not able to get care. Everyone in this country is going to be impacted 
by this program. Yet, we are talking about this plan coming out 
possibly within the next week with 1 day of hearings and a quick vote 
in committee and this House thereafter.
  If the Republicans ever reveal their plan, I have no doubt that the 
American people should be able to analyze what the Republicans are 
going to do to them. Instead, the Republicans are holding secret 
meetings without senior citizen input.
  Last year, they criticized President Clinton's health care plan 
because they said he was holding closed-door meetings. But at least 
President Clinton's plan was made public for over a year and we had the 
opportunity to analyze it. We are not going to have the opportunity to 
analyze this one.
  I waited this morning. I listened to what the Speaker said on CNN. I 
got a copy of what was put out by the leadership, and it still does not 
tell me how they are going to implement this $270 billion in Medicare 
cuts. I am still waiting for it, and the American people are still 
waiting for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is our obligation as Members of this House 
and as Congressmen to make sure that that plan comes out in specifics 
and there is ample time to analyze it before we vote on it in this 
House and in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                      the effects of redistricting

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The first hour is allocated to the minority 
leader. The Chair is advised that he has designated the gentlewoman 
from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] to control the balance of the time.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come here again this 
evening to discuss the issue of redistricting.
  Mr. Speaker, you are very well aware, we are in the midst of a 
historic fight, really, in the State of Georgia, and the future of 
African-American representation is at stake in the decisions that will 
be made relative to Georgia's newest district, Georgia's 11th 
Congressional District.
  We understand that this redistricting issue is a basic issue about 
the allocation of power in this country. The question is: Are we going 
to have a government that is reflective of those who are governed, or 
will our Government consist of a few hand-picked people who are the 
political and economic elite of this Nation, or will people like me be 
able to walk the Halls of Congress, be able to gain election to 
policymaking positions, to be able to
 become a part of the very fabric of America's democracy?

  The reason I say people like me, is because I come from common stock. 
I am not from a wealthy family. My father was a policeman in the city 
of Atlanta for 21 years. He was one of the first black policemen.
  He had to endure outrageous conditions where he could not go into 
certain areas of town; he could not arrest 

[[Page H 8947]]
people who were not black; he could not even change his police uniform 
in the headquarters of the Atlanta Police Department. The black 
policemen of his era were forced to go around the corner and down the 
street to the local black YMCA and change their clothes.
  Out of his struggle to be able to practice his profession with 
dignity, came the opportunity to change politics in the city of 
Atlanta. Even at a very early age, I am fortunate to have been a part 
of his struggle to make change in the city of Atlanta. Through the 
collective efforts of people from common stock all across this country, 
we have been able to make a democracy in this country of which we can 
be proud.
  Now, we can truly say that people can rise above tremendous odds, 
people can overcome tremendous circumstances, and people can become a 
fabric in our democracy.
  Through our participation, we can give hope to people who have been 
hopeless. We give voice to people who had been voiceless. We now are 
able to make dreams come true. And even in the much-maligned 11th 
Congressional District of the State of Georgia, we have been able to 
make dreams come true.
  I have got some maps here of districts that have not had to endure 
the kind of negative remarks or negative characterizations that have 
been made about the district that I represent.
  We have here the district from Illinois, the Sixth District, which 
has a supermajority; happens to be 95 percent. That majority is white. 
This district has remained unchallenged. Nobody thought that this 
district had an irregular shape. Nobody thought there was anything 
wrong with the supermajority of 95 percent.
  This district has been untouched and unscathed, as we have seen the 
issue of redistricting raised all across the South and now even into 
our northern States.
  I also have a map of another district. This is the Sixth 
Congressional District of Texas. Now, all of the districts in Texas 
were challenged, but something strange happened. Only the districts 
that were African-American were found unconstitutional and one district 
that is majority Latino was found unconstitutional. But this district, 
which has a very regular shape according to the courts, and, of course, 
there is nothing wrong with the supermajority, was found 
constitutional.
  It seems to me that there is definitely a double standard if anyone 
could say that this district is neither of irregular shape nor of 
supermajority that is unconstitutional
  Of course, this is the 11th Congressional District of Georgia. The 
Supreme Court did not say that it was irregular in shape, but they did 
say it was unconstitutional, because of a 64-percent supermajority.
  Of course, what kind of people are in this district? People who only 
want a fair shake from their Government. People who want to feel that 
they can go to their precinct and cast a vote for a
 candidate who at the end of the day will be a representative of their 
choice.

  If the people in Georgia who happen to reside in Georgia's 11th 
Congressional District now find that they must cast a vote in which 
their vote is not as meaningful, I think it would be a sad day in the 
State of Georgia.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of laws and we are a nation of 
court decisions. And, of course, all of us have to abide by the laws of 
the land and we must also abide by court decisions, even when we 
disagree with them.
  I am pleased that we have with us a representative, strong advocate 
for the people of the State of Florida. One of the things that we 
noticed is that women have an opportunity to get elected as a result of 
redistricting, because we have open seats, because we have retirements. 
So, when redistricting takes place, sometimes women are negatively 
affected.
  We have with us Representative Corrine Brown whose district has also 
been targeted and I would hope that Corrine does not have to go through 
what I am going through in the State of Georgia. But I guarantee my 
colleagues one thing, the face of this redistricting battle is as much 
about women as it is about African-Americans.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to say before I begin, in 
this Congress it has been pretty hot for me in these last 6 months and 
it has not been a lot of fun, but one of the joys has been serving with 
the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] in the 103d and the 104th; 
a Member that is committed to all of the people in this country. We 
stand together and I will fight for all of the people.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Thank you.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things that I 
can also attest to, that what we are experiencing now is not the first 
time it was experienced in the Congress of the United States. In fact, 
in the 1800's, the same kind of challenges to African-Americans took 
place.
  This year, we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Voting Rights 
Act, and the 75th anniversary of women's right to vote. In 1962, only 
5.3 percent of the voting age black population was registered to vote 
in Mississippi. There were only 500 black elected officials in the 
entire country. Today there are over 5,000 black elected officials.
  The 75th anniversary of women's right to vote represents a long 
struggle and great sacrifices.
 Women had to fight against entrenched opposition with almost no 
financial, legal, or political powers of their own.

  For the first 150 years of our Nation's history, American Government 
did not include women. Does the gentlewoman from Georgia want to 
respond to that? Can you imagine this Congress without any women?
  Ms. McKINNEY. I can imagine it, but I cannot imagine a real democracy 
without women.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. But women won the right to vote by the slimmest 
of margins. In the House of Representatives, suffrage passed by exactly 
the number of votes needed, with one supporter carried in from the 
hospital and the other leaving his wife's deathbed to vote.
  In the Senate, suffrage passed with just two votes to spare. When the 
19th amendment was sent to the States for ratification, Tennessee, the 
last State, passed it by a single vote during a recount. So it just 
amazes me that people cannot understand how important their vote is.
  Redistricting, since the 1990 census, has marked tremendous gains for 
women and minorities. In 1992, the year we were elected to Congress, 
was a historical year for Florida. For the first time in over 120 
years, an African-American was elected to Congress from Florida.
  I do not understand why people do not feel history is important. I 
want to repeat that. For the first time in over 120 years, an African-
American was elected to the U.S. Congress from Florida.
  At the same time, I was elected to represent the Third Congressional 
District, my colleagues, Representative Carrie Meeks and Representative 
Alcee Hastings were also elected to represent Florida.
                              {time}  1715

  Sixteen new African-American Members, mostly from the South, were 
seated in the House of Representatives, and one African-American 
Senator, Carol Moseley-Braun, was seated, expanding the Congressional 
Black Caucus members to 40, the largest ever. Now there are 57 women, 
19 Hispanic, 8 Asians and 1 American Indian. This is the highest number 
of minorities to ever serve in the history of the U.S. Congress. 
Despite these gains, Less than 2 percent of the elected officials in 
this country are black. We still need the Voting Rights Act, and we 
still have a long way to go. I want to repeat that: Less than 2 percent 
of the elected officials in this country are black.
  I and others would not have the honor to serve in Washington if it 
were not for the courage and sacrifice of great leaders who led the way 
before us. Let me tell you about the person from Florida, the first 
black, and only, elected was Josiah Wells, was elected from the area 
that I now have the honor of serving, Gainesville, Fl., and he was 
elected in the year 1879. He was elected from the Third Congressional 
District, just like me. Josiah Wells' election was challenged, and he 
lost his seat after only less than 2 months in office.
  However, by the time he had already been elected to a new term, 
believe it or not, his next election he won, the courthouse burned 
down, the election 

[[Page H 8948]]
was challenged and he was thrown out. So it is not much different 
between 1879 and 1995, thus ended Florida's first congressional career 
for a black Representative.
  I went on and did some research on him. He left the Congress. He went 
to my school, Florida A&M University, and he headed up the Department 
of Education there. Once Reconstruction began, 21 black Congressman 
were elected from the South between 1870 and 1901.
  However, after 1901, when Jim Crow tightened his grip, no black was 
elected to Congress from the South in over 70 years. It is more timely 
than ever to study what happened to black representation during the 
Reconstruction. This period may seem like ancient history, but what 
happened then seems to be happening over again. When the redistricting 
process began in Florida in 1992, leaders of the Florida Legislature,
 where I served as a representative for 10 years, proposed that we have 
one African-American congressperson from Miami, at 52 percent, even 
though the census shows that minorities in Florida represent close to 
40 percent.

  The proposed new African-American district would be located in Miami, 
although Orlando, Jacksonville, Daytona, Tallahassee would still be 
unrepresented. The legislative leaders made it clear they would not 
compromise, and, in fact, I want you to know what happened in Florida. 
The legislature could not draw districts in Florida. The courts took 
over, and the reason why the courts took over is because everybody that 
was in charge of the redistricting was running for Congress. So it did 
not have anything to do with whether you were African-American, but 
everybody in charge was running, from the President of the Senate to 
the people in the House, that headed up redistricting to the people in 
the Senate.
  So we could not pass a plan in Florida. So you cannot disregard the 
role that politics plays in drawing districts.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I have read the brief that the plaintiffs 
in your case filed. I would like for you to explain to the American 
people the basis on which the plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit against 
the Third Congressional District of Florida. What were some of their 
reasons?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. The main reason is that they felt that the 
person from the Third Congressional District voted with the Black 
Caucus, not voted for the people of the Third Congressional District.
  I had 13 town meetings during the break. I saw over 3,000 people, and 
we are altogether on our other issues. We all do not support any of the 
Medicaid cuts; you see, this is what we have in common: We do not 
support the cuts in education, the cuts to the senior citizens; putting 
children first with the cuts. If we are supposed to balance the budget, 
the people from the Third Congressional District feel that women and 
children should go first. It should not be on the backs of the poor 
people and the working people in this country.
  Ms. McKINNEY. But the plaintiffs have said that because you vote with 
the Congressional Black Caucus on these kinds of issues, that you do 
not deserve to sit in Congress and that the people that you represent 
do not deserve to have a voice in Congress? Is that
 what they are saying?

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. That is exactly what they are saying, but more 
than that, the people of the Third Congressional District have had 
opportunities to decide who they want to represent them, and we are not 
talking about some of these Members of Congress that just did win. This 
Member won close to 60 percent.
  Ms. McKINNEY. So you won.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Keep in mind now, the plaintiff, I beat him 
close to 70 percent.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Wait a minute now. I do not believe what you are 
saying, because the organizer of the plaintiffs in the 11th District of 
Georgia was my former opponent.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Well, the organizer of the Third Congressional 
District, who, by the way, does not live in the Third Congressional 
District, you know, but wants to dictate what happens in the third, I 
beat him close to 70 percent in the last election, well, in 1992.
  Ms. McKINNEY. So really it appears that what we are seeing is people 
run for office.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Losing by large numbers.
  Ms. McKINNEY. They lose, then they cannot stand the agony of defeat, 
particularly to a woman.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. A black woman.
  Ms. McKINNEY. So then they go against the will of, I won by 66 
percent in 1994, so they go against the will of 66 percent of the 
people in the district. I had five plaintiffs, and they take it out on 
580,000 people, is that what you are saying?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. That is exactly what I am saying. That is 
exactly what I am saying. For the courts, this is the sad indictment to 
come up with rulings to ignore the history of this country; you know, 
it would have been nice to think that America has always been color-
blind and that women and minorities have always had the opportunity to 
participate. But they have not.
  As I told you earlier, women for the first 150 years of this country 
could not vote in this country.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I am so pleased that we have been joined by another 
woman whose district has been declared unconstitutional.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Excuse me, is this the same district that 
Barbara Jordan represented for over 20 years?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. No.
  Ms. McKINNEY. This is a new district, but Barbara Jordan's historic 
district was also found unconstitutional by the Texas lower court, but 
now they found this district constitutional, so this district is 
constitutional, but this woman does not deserve a seat in Congress.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. If that is Ms. Johnson from Texas I think she 
has a very compact district, although compactness should not be the 
only criteria to decide how to district.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Why do we not hear from Congresswoman Eddie Bernice 
Johnson from Texas and she can tell us about the Texas situation.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you very much. Let me 
applaud you for being persistent about the right of voters in the 
various districts. In Texas, black citizens were not allowed to vote in 
the primary until 1944, and then they bought poll tax, and it was not 
until the early 1970's that we were allowed to register to vote without 
paying.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Excuse me, I did not hear you. You must be 
mistaken.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. No; it is a matter of record. We 
had to pay poll tax to vote and, then we had to go through a lot of 
intimidation. So we were delighted when the Voting Rights Act came in 
1965, and for the first time in Texas, for the 1970 census, we were 
able to have an opportunity to have representation at State level as 
well as congressional level.
  The district that I occupy was supposed to come about after the 1970 
census. But, indeed, it came 20 years later. The district that I 
represent is one that is over one metropolitan area, and it is clear 
that the lines are a little jagged, not quite as jagged as District 
Six. I do not know the real difference, actually, except that mine is 
45 percent black populated, and because of that it was declared 
unconstitutional. It is interesting.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Wait a minute. Your district is 45 percent black and it 
is unconstitutional, my district is 64 percent black and it is 
unconstitutional. What is your district?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mine is 50-50.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Yours is 50 percent black, that is unconstitutional. 
Does that mean any percent black is unconstitutional?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. It appears
   that way because that district is 91-percent white and it is 
constitutional.

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Let me say, in Florida, until 1982, we elected 
two members to the Florida Senate for the first time in 100 years. I 
just want you to know we have not come that far. The history of 
representation in this country is not great. If you look down in 
Florida, we did not elect a woman until, I think, 1986, not in the 
history of the State of Florida.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Congresswoman Brown and I were amazed to discover that 
the organizer of the plaintiffs in the Georgia case was a gentleman who 


[[Page H 8949]]
had run in the 11th district and had lost. The same situation prevails 
in the Florida case. Could you tell us a little bit about the plaintiff 
in your State?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. It became a problem because he 
lost?
  Ms. McKINNEY Well, I doubt very seriously, had he won, that we would 
be in this situation now.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. So if you do not win when you 
run, you can file a lawsuit?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I guess so, and you have friends in the courts.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I think the thing that troubles 
me the most about this is that we have heard statements from some that 
feel that they should not be represented by black people. That is 
clearly very interesting, since we have been represented by whites all 
of our history.
  Ms. McKINNEY. We continue to vote for whites.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Indeed, and most of them have not 
really been that responsive.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. You know one of the things that I find 
outstanding by every black Congressperson that I know is that we vote 
for people issues, and it does not have anything to do with color. When 
I vote for lunch programs, I want all of the children to be able to go 
to school and have school lunch.
  While fighting against Medicare and Medicaid and the cuts, I am 
representing all of the people of Florida. I do not see how a 
Congressperson from Florida can go along with the proposals that they 
have to cut Medicaid and Medicare. Reverse Robin Hood: Robbing from the 
poor and working people to give to the rich. There are not other 
Members in Congress more democratic than the black Members of the 
caucus.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Well, I would agree with you and say that when I put my 
card in the little machine and I press my ``yea'' or ``nay'' button, it 
does not have ``black'' on it. So when I cast my vote, my vote counts 
the same as everyone else's vote up here, and when I cast my vote on 
issues, I am looking at the impact of that vote on all of my 
constituents, not just not black constituents. When I come up here, I 
do not vote just for black people, I vote for everybody.
                              {time}  1730

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. It just always amazes me how when people parade 
through black churches in September, October, and November, they see no 
relationship to what they do in January once they are sworn in.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Well, I think the important thing 
is for those persons that we represent, we try very hard to be 
responsive. We answer mail, we visit, we answer questions, and we try 
to respond and vote to represent that majority.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. All of the people.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I am sorry to say that very, very 
often, when I have voted for people, I did not get that responsiveness. 
I did not always get my letters answered. If I asked questions they did 
not like, I was avoided. That has not happened with me. What about the 
other gentlewomen?
  Ms. McKINNEY. I can tell the other gentlewomen that in our 
congressional office we have serviced, in our casework alone, thousands 
of our constituents. Now, we do not hang a shingle on the door that 
says black here and white here. We do not do that. Everybody comes into 
our office and we treat everybody with dignity and respect, because 
that is the way we want to be treated. So we do not make a difference 
between our constituents. We serve all of our constituents.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I am very proud of the service that my office 
rendered to the people of the Third congressional district. I have gone 
into little counties and the next day the headlines in the paper reads 
the first time in anybody's memory they had even seen a Member of 
Congress.
  Ms. McKINNEY. That is correct.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. The first time they had ever seen a Member of 
the United States Congress.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I represent a little county of roughly about 2,000 
folks or so. It is Glascock County. It is the peacock capital of 
Georgia. I went there for a visit. It was the first time that that 
county had ever been visited by a Member of Congress. And that county, 
by the way, is a majority white county. So we do not distinguish our 
constituents on the basis of race, and it is unfortunate that five 
unhappy people would be able to hold 580,000 people hostage as we go 
through this redistricting process.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I believe that one thing that I 
will always be known for is my responsiveness to all people without 
regard to color or age or gender, and I think my record is clear.
  As a matter of fact, I have not won with less than 73 percent of the 
vote. When I ran for the Texas House in 1972, I became the first black 
woman in the whole area ever elected to public office and I did not get 
any more opposition the whole time I held that office. When I ran for 
the Texas Senate, after my first race, I did not get any other 
opposition. So I must be pleasing a majority. I received 93 percent of 
the vote in my primary coming to the U.S. Congress.
  I believe that I am pleasing the majority. But there was one person 
who indicated that she did not want to live in that district and so she 
joined with the plaintiffs. I do not have a problem with that person's 
opinion. I have lived in districts that I did not want to live in. But 
I think it is called democracy. Democracy in this country is admired 
the world over. We have attempted to spread it throughout the world and 
it is a difficult form of government. It is probably the most expensive 
form, but it is the form that we all prefer. It is a form that we have 
respected, it is a form that we fought for.
  In every war, we have been a part of that, defending this Nation. We 
have been a part of law enforcement. We have been a part of teaching. I 
do not know a profession that we have not wanted to be, even before we 
could be, a part of.
  I believe that this country has promised all of its people one vote 
per person, and I do not think it eliminates us now. I realize that it 
did at one time. I believe that these districts are worth standing up 
for. I think they are worth fighting for, because we fought for freedom 
and this is all a part of it.
  It is clear that we have been dealt some negative blows. It is clear 
that we have all suffered race discrimination. it is clear that we 
continue to face those barriers. But I believe if we succumb to those 
barriers, we will be letting a lot of people down. We would be letting 
this country down because this country's promise is not to have 
discriminatory practices, and we owe that as a responsibility to all of 
this Nation's people.
  We need to get to know each other, because once we do, we will not 
have the same barriers as before we do. I believe that it has been 
educational for the persons that I represented to get to know me and 
for me to get to know them. That is really what makes a real 
understanding and acceptance.
  It is unfortunate that we have to go through this first, but can 
either of the gentlewomen name any institution that has not come 
through the growing pains? And, yes, this has been long, it has been 
hard, it has been heartbreaking, it has been disappointing, and it is 
hard to explain it to your children, it is hard to explain to your 
grandchildren, but we cannot give up.
  Ms. McKINNEY. We absolutely cannot give up.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. We stand on very tall shoulders. If we think 
about people that have died to give us the opportunity to stand here on 
this floor and have this conversation, then I am committed that we will 
never go back to an institution of all white men.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I agree with the gentlewoman, and I just did a little 
list here of the women whose districts have been targeted. Women. So 
while we three up here also happen to be African-American, we are women 
trying to make it in a traditionally male environment.
  Sheila Jackson-Lee is the gentlewoman's colleague from Texas; the 
gentlewoman from New York, Nydia Velazquez, is America's first Puerto 
Rican American Congresswoman. Somebody in the State of New York does 
not like the fact that we have, for the first time in our Nation's 
history, a Puerto Rican American woman voting on the floor of the 
United States House of Representatives.

[[Page H 8950]]

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. As I said before, this is the first time, these 
past 3 years, or 2\1/2\, that we have had a diverse Congress. It has 
been the most diverse. Look who championed the issues of the people. I 
am very proud to stand with the Women's Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, 
the Black Caucus, the Democratic Caucus for the people of this country.
  If we look at the attacks on affirmative action, and I recognize that 
is another talk, but we have 98 percent of all of the jobs in all of 
the categories held by white males and they are only 42 percent of the 
population. It is like my grandmamma's sweet potato pie. All we have is 
a thin slice, and they do not want us to have that slice.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Well, I want to thank both of the
   gentlewomen for joining me in this special order and I would like to 
conclude by saying that I know that this struggle, as the gentlewoman 
correctly point out, is growing pains for the south and it is growing 
pains for our Nation.

  We do not stand alone in Georgia's fight that we are having. We have 
been joined by the Congressional Black Caucus, the Democratic National 
Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the State 
of Texas, the National Voting Rights Institution, Mexican American 
Legal Defense Educational Fund, National Asian Pacific American Legal 
Consortium, the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the 
National Organization for Women Legal Defense Fund, National Urban 
League, People for the American Way, and Women's Legal Defense Fund. It 
is obvious that we do not stand alone.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. It is very ironic that 
gerrymandering never became an issue until they started to include us. 
Districts were drawn all kinds of ways. I happened to have chaired the 
State Senate redistricting committee for congressional districts, and 
all kinds of requests came in. They wanted to include their 
grandfather's burial site, their grandmother's birthplace, an army 
site, a certain street, and a little store that they visited in. But 
when it includes black voters, it becomes illegal.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I would ask the people of this great Nation to please 
stand with these women who are here and the other women whose districts 
have been targeted and say that we appreciate the kind of democracy 
that we have now achieved; and while we are faced with the position of 
some people trying to take us back, this country will not go back, and 
that the people will join with us as we fight to move this country even 
more forward toward a greater type of democracy that includes 
everybody.
  I thank the other gentlewomen very much for participating.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman.
  

                          ____________________