[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 157 (Wednesday, October 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9886-H9893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   A DEBATE ON MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee 
of the majority leader.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I wish I was going to take 
an hour here on a different topic, but I have to respond, along with my 
colleague, to some of the things that have just been said.
  One of the pluses of our great society is you can say anything on the 
floor of the House. You do not have to back it up with fact. You can 
say anything you want about anything. Whether or not you believe it is 
something people back home have to make up their own minds.
  I would say the American people have spoken about what this party has 
done. I would remind my Democrat colleagues before they leave the floor 
that since Bill Clinton took office, 136 publicly elected officials 
have switched parties in America, 136. Zero have switched from the 
Republican Party to the Democrat Party, and 136 have switched from the 
Democrat Party to the Republican Party, including 5 Members of Congress 
and the only American Indian in Congress.
  So I would say to my colleagues the American people are listening, 
and your elected officials around the country are coming in droves to 
support the ideals and the principles of this party.
  What we are going to attempt to do is provide some honest information 
to rebut what you have just said here. Let me read a quote. This quote 
is from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the most stalwart 
Democrats in the Senate. This quote was from September 17, 1995:

       At the present moment, Medicare costs double every 7 years. 
     The Republicans want to slow that down to doubling every 10 
     years. The Administration is somewhere in between. No one is 
     talking about abolishing Medicare and, indeed, no one is 
     talking about cutting Medicare, especially the rate of 
     growth.

  I would say to my colleagues on the Democrat side this is Senator 
Moynihan speaking. This is not some Republican. This is not Newt 
Gingrich. This is your leader on health care issues and on Medicare 
issues, Senator Moynihan. If you want to quote someone, respond to the 
quote of Senator Moynihan. Let us be factual, Mr. Speaker, in this 
debate. Let us stop the use of partisan politics in attempting to scare 
senior citizens.

  Your party does not have a corner on caring for people any more than 
ours does. I think it is wrong to use mean-spirited attacks to try to 
scare seniors into thinking someone is trying to take benefits away 
from them. That is absolutely outrageous.
  I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate this opportunity to address my fellow 
northern Californians in the spirit of bipartisanship. I thought I 
would come over to the floor and perhaps present a little different 
perspective than what our colleagues and C-SPAN viewers may have just 
heard in this last hour.
  We have just heard and witnessed a display of incredible 
partisanship, the kind of scare tactics that have nothing to do about 
what is really right for this country and everything to do with a naked 
attempt by the Democratic minority to regain power and regain control 
of the Congress.
  My colleagues failed to point out, as they were talking about these 
draconian cuts, as they were displaying postcards which I assume are 
paid for by some special interest group, they failed to point out the 
House and Senate budget conference report calls for an increase, and I 
will be happy to show you the numbers, by the way, if anyone would care 
to walk across the aisle and see them, the House and Senate conference 
budget report calls for an increase, I think we understand plain 
English, an increase in Medicare spending in California per beneficiary 
from $5,821 today to $8,839 in the year 2002.
  Furthermore, the House budget conference report calls for an 
aggregate of $50,283 per Medicare beneficiary in California over the 
next 7 years. That does not sound like the kind of draconian cuts that 
I just heard you describing.
  In fact, witnessing this whole display really makes me remember the 
words of Will Rogers, or maybe it was Woody Allen, who said, ``No 
matter how cynical I get, I just can't seem to keep up.''
  I also want to point out, before the gentlewoman from Sonoma County 
leaves, I want to point out to her, of course, any other colleagues, I 
want to point out that the gentlewoman just sent to her constituents at 
taxpayer expense a so-called franked newsletter, a franked mailer. This 
is one of the most outrageous and cynical things that I think I have 
seen in my service in Congress, because it says in the flier, ``I am 
outraged that Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and the extremists in 
Congress are cutting programs.'' Then it goes on to say, 

[[Page H 9887]]
``Sonoma County seniors will have to empty their wallets in order to 
make up for a $270 billion cut to Medicare.''

  Here are the House-Senate budget conference figures, an increase per 
beneficiary, $5,000 today, $8,000 in 7 years, an aggregate per 
beneficiary in California of $50,283.
  Furthermore, these folks in the minority party go on and on and on, 
but I do not hear them embracing the President's proposal. Is the 
President not in fact the leader of the National Democratic Party? And 
the President, finally, after months of procrastination, sent up to 
Congress a revised budget proposal, and he proposes in this revised 
budget to address the inflation rate in the Medicare program. He has 
recognized that Medicare, in recent years, has been growing at a 
nonsustainable rate. He, too, wants to control the inflation rate.
  In fact, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 
the President's proposed savings in Medicare are $192 billion compared 
to the $270 billion in our plan, and that difference, according to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, \7/10\ths of 1 percent. So I 
do not understand, again, unless this is all about partisan politics 
and a naked power grab in an attempt by the Democratic minority to 
regain control of this Congress. I do not understand what this special 
order is about, because surely our colleagues are not recognizing the 
inherent fundamental problems in the Medicare program.
  First of all, they are not acknowledging that average beneficiaries 
receive far more than they pay into the system, and that is, we all 
have access to these numbers, but the average two-income couple 
receives $117,200 more than it contributes or pays into the Medicare 
trust fund. The average one-income couple receives $126,700 more in 
benefits than what they pay into the trust fund.
  Even more alarmingly, here is the fundamental problem with Medicare: 
The pool of taxpayers funding Medicare is shrinking. When the program 
began in 1965, we have roughly 5\1/2\ taxpayers supporting 
each Medicare beneficiary. Today it is 3.3 taxpayers for each 
beneficiary; and by the year 2035, the ratio, with the baby-boomers 
reaching retirement age, is going to shrink to 2 taxpayers supporting 
each beneficiary.

  You do not have to be an insurance underwriting expert. You do not 
even have to understand actuarial tables to realize there is a major 
problem in the Medicare trust fund that requires, in my view, an honest 
bipartisan approach to solving this problem.
  We heard none of that again in this past hour, so I can only deduce 
from again, their presentation, if you want to call it that, our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing other 
alternatives for fixing Medicare. So what would those alternatives be?
  Well, the Medicare trustees, which includes three Clinton secretaries 
and the administrator of the Social Security Administration, have told 
us we do have two choices.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, point of personal privilege.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time is controlled by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], point of 
personal privilege, the gentleman referred to me. May I respond?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I will yield to the gentlewoman at the 
appropriate time.
  Continue.
  Mr. RIGGS. I thank the gentleman again for yielding.
  The Medicare trustees put the Congress on notice back in April 
benefits would have to be reduced by 30 percent or taxes raised, 
payroll taxes raised, by 44 percent to restore Medicare solvency, 
unless changes are made to the program as we are proposing.
  I would tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania I can only deduce by 
this presentation we just heard and saw from our colleagues that they 
are either in favor of reducing benefits by 30 percent and rationing 
health care benefits or raising payroll taxes by 44 percent, which 
would wipe out the economic recovery, such as it is in America today, 
and destroy literally tens of thousands of jobs in the process.
  So again I hope we can get past this very cynical, naked display of 
partisanship that we just saw, this blatant abuse of, as far as I am 
concerned, of the taxpayers' precious dollar and really have an honest 
debate and if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who now, of 
course, not having even looked our direction over the past hour, of 
course, not being willing to yield to us, want to have a legitimate 
debate, I say to them, I would be happy to meet with you here in this 
august Chamber and schedule a debate.
  We will have an honest, open, bipartisan debate, not again these 
attempts to score strictly partisan political points, because I think 
that does a disservice to this country. I think we ought to elevate the 
debate above, again, this political rhetoric that we heard in the last 
hour.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Let me just say, before I yield to my 
colleagues on the other side, I will in fact yield to them despite past 
hours of times where Members of your side would not yield to our 
Members, namely, I was over here one night with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], who tried repeatedly to get an honest 
dialog going, but you would not allow that to take place, even though 
there was no attempt to have bipartisan spirit, I will allow the 
gentlewoman to respond and have some comments while the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] is still in the Chamber.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I really did come here to talk to you about fire 
prevention and be with you on that debate.
  Since I was referred to, I do, out of a point of personal privilege, 
want to respond.
  First of all, I would like to thank my colleague from north of me for 
showing my newsletter, which was actually sent out with the newspaper 
and it was not franked and it cost a third less at least of what it 
would have if it had been franked. But it is a newsletter I have gotten 
compliments about all around the district. People appreciated it. They 
do appreciate communication from the person that represents them in 
Congress.
  I would like to ask the question about all this rhetoric. One, I do 
not think you listened to what went on in the hour before, when we were 
up here. Otherwise you would not be able to accuse us of not answering 
questions. We were responding to what we heard earlier.

                              {time}  2145

  But I would like to ask you, will you take the tax breaks off the 
table so that we actually can have an honest debate about Medicare and 
Medicaid and balancing the budget? Would the gentleman not vote for 
that?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, I yielded to the 
gentlewoman thinking she was going to respond to a point of personal 
privilege about something that our colleague from California said. 
Evidently that is not the case. I thought the gentlewoman was going to 
make a complaint about what he said being false or erroneous.
  Mr. RIGGS. If the gentleman will yield, I do want to respond to the 
gentlewoman, because I was, again, just quoting from a flier that was 
actually sent to me by a disgruntled constituent who came across it 
somehow. Of course, we can acknowledge that we both represent parts of 
a single county, Sonoma County, in northern California.
  My concern is that, again, I am happy to make this available to 
anybody who wants to look at it carefully, but my concern is there is 
no factual information in here. That is where I ask the question. You 
claim a $270 billion cut to Medicare. In effect, I would ask the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania to yield to anybody on that side who wants 
to acknowledge that the numbers that are actually in the budget 
resolution, which I will now say for the third time, an increase in 
California that is higher than the national average, an increase in 
spending per Medicare beneficiary from $5,821 today to $8,139 in the 
year 2002, an aggregate per beneficiary of $50,283 over that time 
period.
  Would it not have been more balanced, would it not have been in the 

[[Page H 9888]]
  spirit of bipartisanship, to perhaps mention those numbers in this 
newsletter, which again I am assuming was produced and distributed at 
taxpayer expense? Would it not have been more honest to inform your 
constituents of the conclusions in the Medicare trustees' report, the 
Board of Trustees, Old Age, and Survivors Trust Fund, 1995 annual 
report? There is no reference to that anywhere in here.
  As I pointed out earlier, there are three Clinton Cabinet Secretary 
members and the Administrator of the Social Security Administration 
serving on that board of trustees.
  I would also like to point out that just 2 years ago, the President 
of the United States stood here in this Chamber, up at that podium, and 
said, and I have the actual quote, in his 1993 address to Congress, 
``Today, Medicaid and Medicare are going up at three times the rate of 
inflation. We propose,'' this was in the President's health care 
proposal, ``We propose to let it go up at two times the rate of 
inflation. This is not a Medicare or Medicaid cut.'' But I believe that 
is the term you use in your newsletter.
  That is the President of the United States. This is not a Medicare or 
Medicaid cut. So when you hear all this business about cuts, let me 
caution you that this is not what is going on. We are going to have two 
increases in Medicare and Medicaid and a reduction in the rate of 
growth.
  That pretty much summarizes what we have been talking about in our 
plan.
  I want to point out one other thing. There is no link to tax cuts. 
Apples and oranges. Medicare savings can only be used to save Medicare. 
The President, of course, has recently changed his rhetoric, claiming, 
again quoting the President, ``Not one red cent of the money being paid 
by seniors will go to the trust fund. It will go to fund a tax cut that 
is too big.'' Notice he says too big, because the President also favors 
some form of middle-class tax relief.

  The President is wrong. Under current law, premiums and payroll taxes 
paid into the Medicare Trust Fund can only be used for the Medicare 
Program. This is true of both the trust fund that pays hospital 
expenses, part A, and the trust fund that pays physicians and other 
expenses, part B. As the Medicare trustees themselves stated in their 
April 1995 report, ``The assets of the Trust Fund may not be used for 
any other purpose.''
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for those comments. 
Let me say what offends me most about the debate on this issue is what 
has become nothing more or less than gross partisan attacks. That is 
what offends me. Let me tell you why. I am a Republican who works with 
the other side on labor issues, proudly. I work with the other side on 
environmental issues, wetlands protection, endangered species. I am in 
front on all of those issues working with Members on the other side. I 
am working with the other side even in areas of defense cuts. I voted 
to eliminate the B-2 bomber, which I heard many of my colleagues 
tonight say only Republicans are concerned about strong defense. I can 
look at the votes and the delegation of our colleagues from California 
and that vote in particular.
  But the point is, you have turned this into partisan name-calling, 
trying to scare seniors, giving us the impression tonight that only 
Democrats care about kids and seniors. Let me tell you, I am the 
youngest of nine kids. My mother is 85. We were born and raised in a 
poor town. I was the first to go to college. She has 55 grandkids and 
38 great-grandkids, all living today. My mother has no pension. She 
relies on Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.
  I resent having anyone on the other side saying I do not care about 
my mother. Who are you to say that we as Republicans are insensitive to 
the concerns of seniors? I taught school in a public school for 7 years 
in west Philadelphia and adjacent. I ran a chapter 1 program with 
economically deprived kids. I resent the fact that you stand up here in 
a 1-hour special order and try to portray Republicans as not being 
concerned about human beings, and that is exactly what was said 
tonight. I heard my other friend and colleague from California say, and 
you know, they do not want to cut defense.
  Ask the one million people in this country, the United Auto Workers, 
ask the Electrical Workers, who have lost their jobs in plants in 
southern California, in Boeing and GE. Ask them if we have cut defense 
at all. One million men and women have been downsized because of 9 
years of defense cuts, not cuts in the rate of increase, but actual 
real cuts in terms of defense spending.
  So all I am saying is why can we not move beyond the partisanship and 
discuss this as intelligent human beings? The people back home do not 
want to see your side get up and call us names and us get up and call 
you names. They want us to solve problems.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. First of all, I would like to be clear that we did not 
say that you did not care. We talked about what was being proposed. 
Second, I would like to say, if you want that debate, why did we have 1 
day of hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. We have had debate on this issue for the 
9 years I have been here. Talking about 1 day of debate in the 
Committee on Ways and Means is not about what is going on in this 
country on this issue, or I have been living in a vacuum. I have that 
debate at town meetings every day.
  Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman knows the 
esteem with which Members on this side of the aisle hold him for the 
values and courage he has demonstrated on his own side of the aisle on 
these issues. But it is amazing to hear the gentleman be so surprised 
that people will comment on a plan, and, yes, we have talked about 
these issues in general, but in terms of subjecting the particular 
proposal to the public scrutiny, that has not been done.
  I appreciate what the gentleman said about chapter 1 and his 
participation as a teacher teaching disadvantaged children. That is why 
I know the gentleman probably shares a concern that many of us have 
that nearly $1 billion was cut out of the Labor-HHS budget for that 
chapter 1 program.
  When we talk about the defense budget, the point is we are all for a 
strong defense, and, God knows, nobody came here and said only the 
Republicans care about a strong defense. We all care about a strong 
defense. The point is that when we subjected the budget to cuts, both 
the rescission bill and in preparing for the budget for next year, 
defense was off the table. In fact, there was $7 billion more in the 
bill than even the administration had asked for, and billions more than 
last year's budget.
  So it may be the appropriate number. It may be the exact appropriate 
number. All we are saying is, as we subject all of our spending to the 
harsh scrutiny, why is defense not on the stable?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as a 
member of the Committee on National Security, it was President 
Clinton's Defense Secretary, Les Aspin, who came up with the bottoms up 
review who told us what we needed to protect this country. To meet 
Secretary Aspin's bottoms up review, the General Accounting Office said 
President Clinton's plan was $150 billion short. The Congressional 
Budget Office said his plan was $60 billion short. Democrats like the 
gentleman from Missouri, Ike Skelton, on our committee, came out with 
their own budget saying he was $44 billion short. The President stood 
in this very well in the State of the Union speech this year, and what 
did he say? We need to put $25 billion more back into defense.
  That was not me standing in the well there, it was the President of 
the country, who is the leader of your party.
  Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman is 
talking about increases in defense spending, an overall number. We are 
talking about what are those dollars spent on and how can there be 
savings of waste, fraud and abuse and inefficiencies in the defense 
budget that is subjected to the same kind of scrutiny that the rest of 
the budget is? It is about that.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, I will say that I am 
just as much for cutting out waste, fraud and abuse as anyone, and will 
take a back seat to no one in attempting to reduce defense spending, 
whether it is through cutting the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
which we are doing by 25 percent this year. While defense spending has 
gone down, the number of people in the Secretary's Office has gone up 
dramatically, or, 

[[Page H 9889]]
whether it is by putting in procurement reforms.
  But let me say if we are talking about reforming, I never hear the 
other side, and maybe even some on my side, talk about the waste, fraud 
and abuse in human service delivery. I looked at a study that was done 
by the Baltimore Sun last December, and for any of our colleagues 
listening to this debate tonight, I will be happy to provide a copy of 
that study.
  The Baltimore Sun did an expose on SSI [supplemental security 
income]. They found that it is one of the grossest programs in terms of 
waste, fraud and abuse this country has. Now, whether he talked about 
some of the sufferings of poor people, which I can very well relate to, 
believe me, let me say this: Why do we not hear anyone talking about 
the example that was given in the Baltimore Sun of a family in 
Louisiana, a common law couple living together, where the mother has 
now been certified to get SSI because she is too stressed out to work, 
the father was certified to get SSI because he is overweight and can't 
work. They have five teenage boys, and because, after a number of 
tries, the mother was able to get all five kids certified as operating 
below their functional level, now has all of them fully qualified for 
SSI, that that family is receiving $47,500 a year, tax free.
  Let me say to my colleagues back in their offices, and to the 
constituents all across the country, let me repeat that number again, 
just in case there are senior citizens back home that did not hear it 
correctly: $47,500 a year for one family in Louisiana documented by the 
Baltimore Sun as receiving SSI benefits.
  When the reporter asked the mother, ``What do you say about receiving 
all this money?'' She said, ``I am entitled to it.''
  You know what? She is. Do you know in fact that under the current 
guidelines established by the minority party when they were in control, 
she is not violating the law. She is entitled to $47,500 a year.
  Then the reporter went on to ask her, ``Ma'am, how much of this money 
do you use to help your kids improve themselves?'' She said, ``I do not 
use any of that for that. They all have teenage girlfriends, they are 
teenagers, I give them $25 a month total to spend on their teenage 
girlfriends.''
  To our senior citizens listening across America to this debate, I 
hope they ask the question to Members of Congress, what are you doing 
to cut the waste, fraud and abuse out of the SSI system, which is 
completely out of control?
  Let me also further state an example given to me by my good friend 
and your colleague from California [Elton Gallegly] when he brought in 
to me a four-page brochure, printed in Spanish, paid for by the 
taxpayers of this country. That brochure being distributed in Mexico 
today, and says anyone who is pregnant can go to a hospital in Elton's 
area and receive prenatal care, postnatal care, deliver the baby, the 
baby becomes an American citizen, and, furthermore, in Spanish it says 
the mother cannot be turned in to the Immigration Service.
  I wonder if our taxpayers around the country know that their money is 
going to illegal immigrants to come in and have their children 
delivered. Is that waste, fraud, and abuse, or only in the case of the 
Pentagon or others?
  What I am saying is this debate should be based on substance, it 
should be bipartisan, and it should not be this rhetorical name-calling 
back and forth, because there is enough waste here that all of us 
should be attacking it. If there is waste in defense, we should be 
doing it bipartisan. If there is waste in human services, you should be 
joining with us. If you are not joining with us, you are only ignoring 
one part of the problem. That is what I object to.
  Even though we were not here to get time, I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. FARR. If the gentleman would have asked for it, we would have 
yielded.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. That would have been a change from past 
practices of these 1-hour speeches.
  Mr . FARR. We are all Californians. We yield a lot.
  First of all, this issue about getting to the merits of the debate, 
and I appreciate that, we want to get to that, and I think it is 
appropriate. Tonight we generate a debate on the floor that we have not 
been able to have in committee. I would be willing to come down here 
and do that and hope we schedule that. I think the real big issue here, 
and I think you can understand this, if you go out to our constituency 
and on the one hand are telling them look, we are going to balance the 
budget; everything is targeted in this, that is why these cuts are in 
here. Then you turned around and say, by the way, we are also going to 
give a big tax break.
  That is why the phoniness comes. People do not think you can do both. 
I do not think you can do both. If you really legitimately believe that 
this whole issue is just related to sort of waste, fraud and abuse, 
then let us take the tax cut off the table. Just have the Republicans 
abandon that.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, what I would say to 
the gentleman is the Republican Conference came up with a proposal for 
America, across the board, that we put forth to the American people in 
last November's elections, and the American people responded 
overwhelmingly.

                              {time}  2200

  As I mentioned in the beginning of my talk, in case my colleagues 
have not been aware of this, since the President took office, 136 
public elected officials have switched parties. None have switched to 
your party. One hundred thirty-six have switched to our party from 
California, from Washington, from Maine, from the south, including five 
Members of Congress.
  But let me say this to my colleagues, where I find fault with your 
holding up this issue of tax cuts is, where is your proposal to save 
Medicare? This is the report issued by the three cabinet members and 
signed not by Republicans, but by Robert Rubin, Robert Reich and Donna 
Shalala. They said, and I quote, the fund is projected to be exhausted 
in 2001.
  So my question for my colleagues is, where is your plan?
  Mr. FARR. We have a plan, the President's plan, and it is a good 
plan.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. So the gentleman is saying it is the 
President's plan.
  Mr. Riggs, correct me, would you read what the President's plan calls 
for?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I would be happy to, if the 
gentleman would yield. And, of course, both plans, our proposal to fix 
and strengthen Medicare and the President's newest budget, have been 
now reviewed and scored, as we say back here in Washington, by the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and I repeat, President 
Clinton's savings from Medicare amount to $192 billion over seven years 
compared to the $270 billion Republicans will save.
  The truth is, Bill Clinton's newest budget would allow Medicare to 
grow by 7.1 percent, while the Republican budget would allow Medicare 
to grow by 6.4 percent. When you cut through all the rhetoric and scare 
tactics, the difference in growth rates in Medicare spending in the 
Republican budget and in the Clinton plan is only 7 tenths of 1 
percent.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I ask 
each of my three colleagues from California, do they now publicly state 
on the record that they support President Clinton's plan, which, in 
fact, cuts Medicare by what amount or reduces the level of growth by 
what amount?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, the President's savings, because remember, 
both his plan and our plan continues to increase Medicare spending, but 
at a slower rate. His savings is $192 billion over seven years.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman 
from California to ask if she supports that initiative?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I was seeking recognition for a couple of 
different reasons, but I would be pleased to address that point.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Does the gentlewoman support that?
  Ms. PELOSI. First of all, any savings that come, any cuts in 
Medicare-Medicaid, if they are deemed to be there, should be plowed 
back into Medicare.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Does the gentlewoman support that level 
of change?
  Ms. PELOSI. No, I do not support the President's level of cuts.
  
[[Page H 9890]]

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. So the gentlewoman does not support the 
President's plan.
  Ms. PELOSI. Not the level of cuts. But we cannot just--the point is, 
I support the President's approach, which is----
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. But the gentlewoman does not support the 
President's change?
  Ms. PELOSI. The savings that come from his proposal are to be plowed 
back into Medicare.

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. But the gentlewoman does not support that 
plan?
  Ms. PELOSI. I do not support his level of cuts.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Which plan does the gentlewoman support?
  Ms. PELOSI. I support a plan that approaches----
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Which plan is that?
  Ms. PELOSI. A plan that approaches----
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. No, which plan is it? Identify it by 
name.
  Ms. PELOSI. It does not have a name. It is a plan that says----
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Is there a plan?
  Ms. PELOSI. The plan is let us have universal access for all 
Americans to health care.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Well, whose plan is it?
  Ms. PELOSI. The gentleman is very clever. He makes a great long 
speech----
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Who has the plan?
  Ms. PELOSI. About how we should be civil to each other in a debate. I 
do not have to have a plan.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. OK, so the gentlewoman does not have to 
have a plan.
  Reclaiming my time. Moving on to the gentlewoman from California
  Ms. PELOSI. Sir, sir, I have a plan. It is called Medicare.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentlewoman from California, does she 
have a plan? Excuse me.
  Ms. PELOSI. It is called Medicare.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fox). The gentleman from California 
controls the time.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Does the gentlewoman from California 
support the President's plan?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I want to say I am going to repeat what----
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Does the gentlewoman support the 
President's plan?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. No, I do not support the President's plan.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, now reclaiming my time, does 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] does he support the 
President's plan?
  Mr. FARR. I want to see us have a debate on the President's plan in 
your committee.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Does the gentleman support the 
President's plan?
  Mr. FARR. We cannot even get a debate on it.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Does the gentleman support the 
President's plan?
  Mr. FARR. I cannot support it. You will not bring it to the floor.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we now have the three 
Members of Congress, who spent an hour on the floor tearing apart the 
Republican plan, saying it was outrageous, it was insensitive, was not 
compassionate, and now we have, after each of them have been read the 
President's plan and said there is a plan out there, it is the 
President's plan, now have said individually they do not support the 
President's plan.
  That is exactly the problem. And let me point out what this debate 
has come out to.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mr. Weldon has the floor.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will quote Democrat 
Chicago Mayor Bill Daley in an article in the New York Times, and I 
quote. ``The only message we have got is the same one we had in 
November. The Republicans are going to cut Social Security and 
Medicare. People look at it and say forget it, we don't buy that. The 
sky isn't falling''.
  This is not Newt Gingrich, this is the Democratic Mayor Bill Daley 
saying here we go again. We are going to scare the seniors. Like the 
attempt was made when Ronald Reagan came in to convince seniors that 
now Republicans were going to end Social Security. It was a scare 
tactic for nothing less than partisan politics.
  And I will again quote Mr. Moynihan, the most respected Member of the 
Senate on issues involving Medicare and health care. This is from 
September of this year on David Brinkley.

       At he present moment, Medicare costs double every seven 
     years. The Republicans want to slow that down to doubling 
     every ten years. The administration is somewhere in between. 
     No one is talking about abolishing Medicare, and, indeed, no 
     one is talking about cutting Medicare, especially the rate of 
     growth.

  Now, Mr. Speaker, if we could get beyond the rhetoric and have an 
honest debate and Democrats present an honest alternative, if other 
Members do not like the President's, they should put their plan up. We 
cannot say we are not going to cut anything, that is not realistic.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Be happy to yield.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I do want Mr. 
Weldon to get around to his special order, because he has been such a 
tremendous leader in the House on fire safety, but I want to respond to 
him directly about his question about the plan.
  The plan I support is called Medicare. I do think that when we talk 
about the trustees talking about needing some shoring up, it always 
has. A half dozen times we have had to shore up the Medicare trust 
fund, and we will do it again. And we can address the waste, fraud, and 
abuse issue as well. But what we really need is access to universal 
health care in America to reduce the rising cost of health care in our 
country which will then have its impact on Medicare costs and Medicaid 
costs.
  So the plan that I support is one that has been successful and it is 
called Medicare.
  I just want to make one other point. The gentleman talked about some 
anecdotal evidence of abuses at SSI. I am with him on that. Put it all 
on the table. Subject it all to the harshest scrutiny. Our complaint is 
not that social services are not subject to scrutiny. We do not fight 
for them so that people can waste money, we fight for them so people's 
needs are met. Our complaint is everything is not on the table.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and I respect her, as she knows, 
as one of the tireless workers on behalf of human needs in this 
Congress and I respect that. But let me say what offends me is that I 
do not hear the same level of special orders, of dialog over here, 
talking about the abuse of the human service delivery programs in this 
country is I hear with the rhetoric going on with Medicare.
  This issue of SSI is not new. It is not some anecdotal comment. In 
fact, the money that is being used to take care of families who can now 
qualify their kids as operating below their grade level is known as 
crazy money. And all over the country parents are going to 
psychiatrists to get their kids qualified so they can collect SSI 
forever. That is outrageous, because it takes money away from kids who 
have legitimate needs, and it takes money away from legitimate concerns 
of seniors who have the need of SSI.

  Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is, we have to admit in this body, both 
sides, that there is gross waste and abuse all over. We need to stop 
scaring people. The worst part about what I heard tonight is scaring 
seniors. No one wants to hurt senior citizens. I am not going to vote 
here to hurt my 85-year-old mother or her friends in my hometown or the 
town where I was the mayor, which is the second poorest town in my 
county. I will not vote to do that.
  We have to stop the rhetoric of scaring seniors into thinking the bad 
Republicans are going to rob them and take their benefits, and that is 
what is 

[[Page H 9891]]
being said here, and that is what offends me.
  I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, because 
I want to add to the other quotes he has cited here tonight, which I 
think are very important, helpful, and instructive, for the--well, I 
will not call it a debate because I think we are back at a point where 
we are having a bit of a dialog.
  I want to add the comment from our respected and esteemed colleague 
from northern Virginia, Congressman Jim Moran, who said in the Hill 
newsletter on September 27, ``The Republican Medicare preservation act 
is not nearly as draconian as it was assumed by us Democrats.'' Then he 
pauses and goes on to say, ``I am not sure how many of us would be 
willing to admit that.''
  We would like to have a constructive debate on our proposal, and 
certainly on any substitute proposals. And just to set the Record here 
straight tonight, I have heard the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, 
say more than once that he will use his power and prerogative as 
Speaker to make in order on the House floor, when we actually take up 
Medicare legislation next week, any alternative proposal that your side 
of the aisle wants to put forward; or, for that matter, he will make in 
order, under the rules of the House, the President's proposal.
  So we are going to have an open and honest debate next week. We are 
going to have debate on Medicare as a freestanding bill.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. Let me finish my point.
  We will be able to have recorded votes on any competing proposals to 
our plan. So it is not really true to say that--certainly it is not 
true to say that this subject has not been thoroughly debated on 
Capitol Hill. We have had 30 hearings in the House since this session 
of Congress began back in January: six over in the Senate, the 
Committee on Commerce alone has had a dozen hearings and heard from 
almost 100 witnesses and taken hours and hours of testimony. So I think 
we are well prepared going into this debate.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. Well, I have to yield back to the gentleman so he can 
yield to others.
  But I think we are well prepared going into this debate next week. 
And again I join my colleague in saying, Where are my colleagues' plan? 
Let us get it out there on the table so we can look at it and we can 
seriously consider it in the context of preserving and strengthening 
Medicare.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I have to limit our time now because I do 
have to do at least 15 minutes on what I came here for. So if my 
colleagues will stick around, I will yield to each of them to make a 
closing comment, in fairness.
  I will start with my good friend, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Weldon, I want to make the point that when we talk 
about the fact that there have been all these hearings on the 
Republican Medicare proposals, they have not been on the proposal that 
is on the table right now. As we all know, it is congressional 
procedure to air the legislation that we are going to vote on.
  Have we talked in concept about Medicare and about changes in 
Medicare that might be advisable? Certainly. But do we know the 
particulars of the substitute plan that was placed on the table Monday 
night by Mr. Archer? Most of us do not. That is the plan the American 
people should have a period of public comment on. Maybe they will like 
it. Why be afraid of it?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the 
gentlewoman makes a point. This plan is available for anyone who has 
access to Internet, or, if they call my office, I will send them a 
copy.
  I agree that Members should have ample opportunity to vote. I can 
recall being here my first session of Congress at 2:30 in the morning 
when Jim Wright was in the Chair and they brought out a 1,200-page 
document, put it on the desk, and said we have to vote on it tonight. 
We didn't have days, hours or minutes. It was the continuing resolution 
that we were being forced to vote on that none of us had seen.
  This did not just deal with Medicare. It was the blueprint for the 
entire country's fiscal process for the next fiscal year. We did not 
have minutes to consider it.
  Unfortunately, part of the practice of this institution is that we 
get bills like that. In this case we have it. I have had town meetings, 
I have interacted with my people. I know the parameters of this. There 
is a chance to amend it. We will all have an opportunity on the floor 
to present a viable alternative, and at that point in time we want to 
hear what your alternative does.
  We want to hear it. I have heard tonight that none of my colleagues 
on that side support the President's proposed plan because of the level 
of controls on increases, so I will be interested to know what their 
plan is.
  I now yield to my colleague from California, Mr. Farr.
  Mr. FARR. I appreciate that, Mr. Weldon. The gentleman mentioned he 
was mayor of a city, and I think the point to debate here is that 
America deserves the opportunity to know what the law is going to be. 
Your city could not adopt a city ordinance the way we are adopting the 
Medicare plan in America, because your city would require that the plan 
be published in the newspaper; that there be a public hearing scheduled 
on the very text of the ordinance being considered.
  That is what is the problem with this system. We have not been able 
to see that in this massive bill, and I am really surprised, and 
appreciate your concern about the procedure, and I would hope in the 
leadership the gentleman would bring about a law like we have in 
California that says legislators cannot hear a bill unless it has been 
in print for 30 days. Cannot even hear it.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. How many 
terms has the gentleman been here, Mr. Farr?
  Mr. FARR. For one term.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. One term. The gentleman has so much 
eloquence, I thought he had been here for more than one term.
  Let me just say that, unfortunately, in the 9 years I have been here, 
in this session, I have had more chance to look at legislation than any 
period of time in my history. We have been given bills that do not even 
go through our committees in the past that we had to vote on on the 
floor.
  I agree, granted, we should have more time, but it is not like we 
have not been discussing this issue.
  Mr. FARR. We have discussed the issue, but we have to look at the 
law. We are lawmakers. Anybody can go out and discuss the issue. That 
is an academic exercise.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. We would like to see your plan. When will 
we get that?
  Mr. FARR. My point is, we have not even had a hearing on that plan.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Well, when will we get your plan? When 
will we get yours to look at?
  Mr. FARR. Well, will there be a hearing on it?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I will have a hearing. When will my 
colleagues give us a plan?
  Mr. FARR. We will give the gentleman a plan as soon as he schedules 
that hearing.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. No. Members are complaining about our not 
providing a chance to let them look at this, but when are you going to 
give us your plan to look at to tear apart like they are tearing ours 
apart?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Give us a date certain. When will my 
colleagues give us your plan?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. We have a plan. Our plan is 30 years old, Mr. Weldon. It 
is called Medicare.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. So my colleagues are not going to reform 
it at all. They do not buy this?

                              {time}  2215

  Does the gentlewoman buy this or not?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. It is not acceptable to bring the issue of something so 
important to every senior and every family in this country to the House 
floor for debate. We have not had hearings.
  I was a member of a city council. On that city council we talked 
about sidewalk repairs to a much greater extent.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, when do we get your 
plan to save Medicare?

[[Page H 9892]]

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Our plan is Medicare.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. When will we get your plan?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. When we can have a bipartisan debate on what needs to 
happen in order to fix what is wrong.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I think I have had enough of 
this issue. I think the facts are what they are. Anyone watching this 
who cannot see what this is all about is just not paying attention.
  This is not about a bipartisan debate. It is about one party coming 
up with a plan, maybe it is not perfect, but putting it out there for 
people to look at, and the other party walking away and saying, we do 
not even support our President because the plan he has we cannot 
support. Even though we said initially the President had a plan, we do 
not want to embrace that because you do not want to make a tough 
decision. You want to have your cake and you want to eat it, too. You 
cannot do it anymore. That game is over.
  We are going to move on.
  I would just say in closing, I appreciate the emotion displayed by 
myself and other Members. I respect everyone who was here tonight. I 
would like to continue this. I will come back again. If we get time, we 
can have a good, honest split-the-time debate. I will come back.
  The gentleman from California, Mr. Riggs, will you come back as well?
  Mr. RIGGS Absolutely.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. So if we get the time tomorrow night, I 
will be here.


                          fire prevention week

  Let me move on to a topic that I originally wanted to address that is 
very near and dear to me because it is the reason I got involved in 
public service in the first place. And that is the emergency responders 
of this country.
  Before being mayor of my hometown I was a local fire chief in a 
volunteer company and director of fire training for a county of 560,000 
people. I literally grew up working with those people who respond to 
our disasters.
  The reason why I wanted to take out this special order tonight is 
that this week is Fire Prevention Week. It is a week where we want to 
raise the awareness of one of the Nation's most serious problems. That 
problem is the loss of life caused by fire and disaster throughout this 
country.
  We tend to focus in America on incidents involving war and loss of 
life from plagues and other illnesses, and certainly that is critical 
and an important priority of our society. But, Mr. Speaker, we fail to 
look at the fact that our Nation has the worst record of any 
industrialized nation in the world when it comes to fires and natural 
and man-made disasters.
  On average, 6,000 people a year die from fires primarily in one- and 
two-family dwellings. In fact, according to the Safe Kids Campaign, 
which is a national group focusing on protective measures for our 
children, almost 1,000 children each year are killed from fires, 
primarily residential fires. We in this country do not take the issue 
serious unless it is the result of a major disaster, like we saw with 
the World Trade Center or the Oklahoma City bombing or the wildlands 
fires out West or a flood like we had in the Midwest or down South. We 
need to understand the importance of raising the awareness of our 
children and our families every day throughout the year.
  When I first came to Congress 9 years ago, I saw a void in terms of 
awareness of the people who were out there protecting our communities. 
And there are a million and a half of them Eighty percent of them are 
volunteer; 20 percent of them are paid.
  I saw a void in understanding on the point of our public officials 
that these people are really America's number one domestic defenders. 
They are the people who respond to every disaster we have, not just the 
fires in our homes, not just the hazmat incidents, the bombings like we 
saw in New York, the wildlands fires, the hurricanes such as in 
Florida, the tornadoes we saw in the Midwest, the floods and the 
earthquakes. In every one of those instances, year after year, these 
emergency responders come out and give of themselves to protect our 
people and our communities.

  Mr. Speaker, this is one time during the year when we can recognize 
the work of these selfless heroes. In fact, at the end of this week, we 
will have the annual fallen firefighters memorial at Emmitsburg, the 
site of the National Fire Academy for this country. At that site we 
will recognize those individuals who gave their life during the last 
year in protecting the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, what is so outrageous is that each year we lose 
approximately 100 men and women all across America, some paid, many of 
them volunteers. These individuals selflessly give of themselves to 
protect their communities and each year approximately 100 of them make 
the supreme sacrifice.
  On this occasion, this weekend, as we do every year, we will pay 
tribute to their families and their loved ones. I think the best way we 
can pay tribute to these unsung heroes is to acknowledge the real 
problem that America has, the need to take care of our children, to 
educate them on what to do if they are in an emergency situation, the 
need to deal with our seniors, many of whom are confined and live alone 
and do not have adequate alarm systems or do not have the adequate 
ability to protect themselves if an incident occurs in their house and 
the ability to teach our families how they need to be able to be 
prepared to deal with emergencies, and that is what this week is about.
  Yesterday, the International Association of Firefighters, the 
organization of paid firefighters nationally, brought to Washington a 
group of young children and individuals who had suffered burns in real 
instances around the country. What a tragedy it was and what a tragedy 
it is to see someone who suffers burns from an incident in their home 
or in their place of work.
  These kids came down here to remind us that we have an obligation 
every day of the year to try to heighten the awareness of young kids as 
to how they can prevent burns from occurring in the home, in the 
workplace, in the school or other places where our families assemble.
  I commend the firefighters associations for bringing those kids here 
and for Senator Dole for speaking to them to remind them that we do 
care and that we are going to continue to work on funding for burn 
foundations across the country and for educational programs like those 
provided by the National Fire Protection Association and the 
International Association of Firefighters to protect our kids, 
especially those that are done in cooperation with the national Safe 
Kids Campaign.
  Today over across the street, we had, along with the Congressional 
Fire Services Institute, a 2-hour luncheon session for Members of 
Congress and their staffs where we taught them how to use portable fire 
extinguishers. Some say, why is that necessary? My first term in 
Congress, we had a fire in the Speaker's suite that burned the entire 
suite and could have jeopardized life in that particular building, but 
because of aggressive action by some staffers and because of the quick 
response of the D.C. Fire Department, the fire was extinguished.
  We want every staffer in our buildings to know that they should 
understand how to respond to an emergency, how to use a portable 
extinguisher. And along that line, we have also done CPR classes where 
Members of Congress and staffers can learn the basic techniques of CPR 
and hopefully spread that word back in their districts.
  Tomorrow we will have a program at the Capitol Hill Day Care Center 
where we will talk to young children who are there every day about fire 
protection, life safety and about some of the basic lessons that they 
should be learning, like how to dial 911 when an emergency call is 
needed or how to drop and roll if in fact the child's clothing should 
somehow catch on fire or one of the other things that can happen to a 
kid in the home that they need to understand they can take action on 
themselves.
  On Friday, we will have a session with Members of Congress on 
national legislation looking at the whole issue of disasters. A year 
ago, over a year ago, I petitioned Speaker Tom Foley to convene a 
bipartisan task force of Members of this body to focus on the issue of 
natural and man-made disasters, partly because I felt we were not 
totally prepared, partly because of the frustration that I hear every 
day from the emergency responders across the country, and partly 
because every time we have a disaster this Congress is 

[[Page H 9893]]
asked to come in and allocate billions and billions of dollars that we 
do not have to pay people primarily in property areas where they could 
have bought insurance, either flood insurance, earthquake insurance or 
fire insurance.
  This legislation that we are going to advocate and highlight this 
Friday in fact focuses on a national system to not just take the burden 
off the taxpayers but to establish a reinsurance fund through the 
private insurance companies to pay for disasters, but also to provide 
an incentive for local towns and counties to adequately preplan their 
emergencies, to make sure those building codes are up to date and 
enforced, to make sure there are adequate emergency plans in place in 
each community and to make sure the emergency responders are properly 
trained and equipped.
  So, Mr. Speaker, all week long we will have a series of activities in 
Washington focusing on the ultimate objective of reducing the loss of 
life in this country and the damage to property from the perils of fire 
and other disasters. But I think it is more important than that in 
terms of the issue not just of educating the citizens of this country 
but in recognizing those heroes that we take for granted too much in 
this country.
  I have had the pleasure, over the last 9 years, of traveling 49 of 
the 50 States and to work and speak to individual and State fire 
service groups in each one of those States. Those brave individuals in 
each of those 49 States are the same. They are selfless people, 
unselfish people who care about their neighborhoods, care about their 
communities. They are Republicans and Democrats, and they are there 
doing a service in many cases with no compensation as volunteers.
  This is a time and this is a week for us to acknowledge them, to pay 
tribute to their work, to thank them for being the real heroes of this 
country, that we can look up to and pay our respects to, to pat them on 
the back for a job well done, to stop by the local emergency response 
station and let them know we appreciate their work, to take our kids 
over and help sensitize them to the kinds of things they should 
understand in case an emergency occurs in their home. This is a week 
where we can pay tribute to these people.
  As I traveled around the country and interacted with these folks, one 
of the things I heard in my early time in Congress was they just were 
not getting the response from the Congress that they felt was 
necessary. We took that notion and 8 years ago, 7 years ago formed the 
Congressional Fire and Emergency Services Caucus. That caucus, Mr. 
Speaker, quickly became the largest caucus in the Congress and remains 
the largest caucus in the Congress with over 400 Members, Republicans 
and Democrats who laid down their partisan differences and who come 
together to say, we together can support these brave men and women and 
give them the kinds of resources they need.

  Following the formation of that caucus, which has had successes in a 
number of legislative areas, ranging from increasing funds for training 
to passing legislation dealing with safe cigarettes to dealing with 
issues involving hazardous materials, putting an emphasis on FEMA, on 
urban search and rescue and all of the other issues that confront us 
every day, we also formed a congressional institute, and that institute 
works as the educational arm of the Congress in sensitizing us to the 
real priorities that emergency responders have every day.
  In talking to these emergency responders nationwide, the one message 
that I keep repeating to them that is so important is that they have to 
let public officials at all levels know who they really are. They are 
not just the people who respond to our disasters. They are not just the 
firefighters. In every one of the towns where we have emergency 
response organizations, and Mr. Speaker, there are 32,000 organized 
emergency response departments in this country, in every one of them, 
the local fire and EMS department is the location where they hold the 
town meetings. It is the hall where the young couple holds its wedding 
reception. It is the organization that gets called when there is a 
child that is lost and they have got to organize a search party. It is 
the group of people that you call when the cellar is flooded and you 
have to pump it out. It is the group of people who organize the July 
4th parades and Memorial Day celebrations, Christmases for kids that 
have special needs and all of other things that make our communities in 
America so vibrant and strong.
  And so during this week, as we recognize and celebrate the need to 
educate the people of this country on how to protect themselves from 
the ravages of fire and other disasters, let us especially pay tribute 
to those brave men and women, 1.5 million of them in 32,000 departments 
across America who today are responding to every type of disaster that 
the mind can imagine. Let us thank them for their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, as further effort this week to encourage Members to get 
involved locally in these issues, we will be distributing this week 
some of the most important devices that Members can take and sell back 
home in terms of educating their own citizens on how to prevent loss of 
life and property damage.

                              {time}  2230

  The First Alert Company is providing smoke detectors for every Member 
of the House and the Senate which they can use as an example of what 
should be done in every home in this country, and that is placing a 
low-cost, in some cases, $5 or $6 smoke detector in a home that can 
alert families there is, in fact, a problem.
  I would encourage all of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to take these 
detectors, which they are getting for free and to use them as examples 
of simple things that can be done by families, and if families, in 
fact, cannot afford to buy smoke detectors, let us know where they are 
so that we can work with the groups that are providing them nationally. 
In fact, both the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the 
First Alert Company have gone time and again to provide free smoke 
detectors and free batteries to many of our urban areas, especially 
areas where we have high incidences of poverty, coupled with incidences 
of arson and fire so we can protect those people who do not have the 
financial resources to buy this equipment.
  These are simple tools, but perhaps one of the most important tools 
in protecting lives and especially children in terms of incendiary 
fires and situations that would occur that would threaten the lives of 
our youngsters throughout this country tonight.
  In closing, let me say I took this special order out in hopes I could 
spend an hour talking about many of the programs in place today and 
many of the actions that are being done both in this Congress and 
throughout America, and let me say this issue is about as strong a 
bipartisan effort as I can think of. The Democrats who are involved in 
this are leading the way as equals with Republicans on these issues, 
and they have been supportive along the track all the way down the line 
even when some of our Republican administrations were not as sensitive 
to these concerns as they should have been.
  I just wish we could take that spirit of bipartisanship that we use 
in dealing with fire and life safety issues instead of scaring people 
and use that same spirit to address some of these other concerns that 
we have in this Nation which cause us to polarize, split apart and just 
demean each other, call out partisan name-calling back and forth. If we 
could accomplish that, then perhaps we could really show the American 
people that we can solve the problems of this country and we can do it 
in a way that is bipartisan and that can give each party credit, 
because the ultimate goal is not to achieve a winning edge over the 
other party. The ultimate goal is to meet the needs of the American 
people.

                          ____________________