[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 156 (Tuesday, October 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9745-H9746]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  THIS CONGRESS IS ANTIEVERYTHING THE CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS ON WOMEN'S 
                         ISSUES HAS WORKED FOR

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor to talk about some 
interesting things that symbolize what is happening in the political 
debate in this House.
  Last week we saw a real brouhaha on this floor about something I 
never thought we would see a brouhaha over. There are three women in 
the basement of this building that represent the suffragettes, and when 
that statue was done, they were supposed to bring that statue and bring 
it in the rotunda. As my colleagues know, the statue was done many, 
many years ago, but they never put it in the rotunda. They have kept it 
in the basement.
  Mr. Speaker, this year we are celebrating the 75th anniversary of 
women having the right to vote, and so some of us thought, well, maybe 
it is time we could at least keep our word to the people who paid for 
that statue and see if we could bring it up to the second floor where 
it belongs, in the rotunda. I guess they thought there were too many 
women in the rotunda already. I did not see any; I mean it is kind of a 
guy circle in there. But guess what? When it came to the floor, Members 
on the other side of the aisle said no, and that symbol, representing 
women and the gains they have made in the 75 years, got pushed back 
down in the basement where they still are if we were to walk around and 
see them. Hopefully we will finally reach some consensus on it.
  But that also reflects what is happening to statutes, or laws, that 
have been passed by this body because many of the statutes that we have 
worked so hard to get through are being desecrated, they are being 
pushed back down or pushed out of the lawbooks, and let me talk about 
some of those.
  One of the things that I was proudest to have participated in was in 
1988 we did something I think every American and everyone who stands in 
this well and talks about family values ought to have been for, and 
that was no American family should be forced to go to the poorhouse 
because one person in that family got terribly ill. This bill was 
called the Spousal Impoverishment Act, and what it meant is that there 
were many elderly couples, and when one would get to the point where 
they needed to go to a nursing home, there was nothing else that could 
happen. Both had to sell everything they had and be totally 
impoverished before Medicaid would allow one to go into the nursing 
home, and then, when that one was deceased, my colleagues can imagine 
what happened to the remaining spouse. There they were, totally 
impoverished.

  Mr. Speaker, our bill said that was wrong, and what we should do in 
that family situation is divide those assets between each party and, 
yes, use the asset, the half of the assets that represent the one, but 
we do not impoverish them both because one got ill.
  My colleagues, that was done away with by the Committee on Commerce 
last week as they marked up the Medicaid bill and had no hearings. So 
the spousal impoverishment statute, just like the women's suffrage 
statue, has not been allowed to come to the first floor. The spousal 
impoverishment statute has been shoved out of the lawbooks, and we are 
back to putting families' lives on the line.
  Another thing that happened was that adult children, their homes 
could be attached, all sorts of things could happen if their family 
member was in a nursing home and could no longer pay. So it not only 
went to the immediate couple, it then could go back to their children, 
and we started reaching back and put liens on their homes and whatever 
until they started paying, and I do not think there is any American 
alive who wants their children to be tapped for that. We all want to be 
independent. We all hope we will live to be healthy in our old age and 
never need to have this happen. But again we have prevented that from 
happening through the law, and again that all disappeared as it came 
out of the Committee on Commerce in the new Medicaid bill as it now 
stands.
  We saw on the Senate side, the other body, we had worked so hard for 
child support enforcement, strong child support enforcement. The other 
body in its wisdom has decided to put a 10-percent 

[[Page H 9746]]
tax on that. So, if the Government helps collect child support, the 
Government keeps 10 percent of that money.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, that again, I think, is very antifamily values and 
antieverything the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues had worked 
for. If my colleagues look at any number of other issues, they see them 
being rolled back, they see them being rolled back, and, as my 
colleagues know, people do not believe it. We had even the Violence 
Against Women Act barely, barely funded when it was unanimously agreed 
to a year ago.
  I hope people watch what happens to that statue of those three women, 
and wake up and find out what is happening to the statutes that so many 
women have cared about, and men, too.

                          ____________________