[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 158 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10032-H10039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEVASTATING CUTS IN MEDICARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May
12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to be here tonight and
to be joined by my colleagues to talk about what we, some of us, have
been talking about for the last several months, and specifically in the
last several weeks, and that is the issue of the devastating cuts that
the Republican leadership in this House would like to inflict on
seniors in this country with $270 billion of cuts in Medicare.
I think you need to put this issue into some perspective to
understand how the special interests today are winning out over the
public interest in this Congress. You really just have to take a look
at today's newspapers. There really are two very poignant stories about
two different groups who came to Washington, to the people's House, I
might add, which is what this body is called. We are not only the House
of Representatives, we are known as the people's House.
{time} 2000
Well, we have two groups who came this week. One group's members got
a private meeting with the Speaker of the House. The other group's
members got arrested. Yes, my friends, the other group got arrested.
When the American Medical Association and its high paid lobbyists came
to Capitol Hill, they were given a closed door meeting with Speaker
Gingrich. And, lo and behold, after the meeting with the AMA, it
announced that it would reverse itself and support Republican Medicare
cuts.
You will note on Tuesday, October 10, in the report of the New York
Times, it said ``For months Republican plans to curb Federal health
care spending have sailed along on a silent wave of interest group
approval. But now cracks are showing. The American Medical Association
is starting to complain about the impact on care.'' That was on October
10 in the New York Times.
Well, they had their closed door meeting with the Speaker of the
House, and, guess what? It was a flip-flop. And here you have on
Thursday, October 12, ``House GOP Medicare bill wins over doctors with
hidden enticements and the promise of profits.''
When happened behind those closed doors? And I will quote to you the
AMA representative, I believe his name is Kirk Johnson, in the paper
said, ``Doctors were promised billions of dollars more than they would
receive under the original plan.''
In other words, they were bought off by the Speaker, How were they
bought off?
Today in the Wall Street Journal the headline is as shown here, that
the House GOP Medicare bill wins over doctors with hidden enticements,
promise of profits, and the Journal lays out what they call the
Medicare sweeteners. These incentives include a provision to make it
easier for doctors to set and profit from their own managed care plans
known as provider service networks; a limit on payment of damages to
some victims of medical malpractice; they would allow beneficiaries to
set up medical savings accounts which would place no restrictions on
the fees that doctors could charge those patients; and a promise to
trim spending reductions in future fee for service payments by
undisclosed amounts.
Together, these provisions, once again, amount to a windfall of
billions of dollars that the AMA representative crowed about after his
meeting with the Speaker. Am I against doctors making a profit? I do
not think anyone is against doctors making a profit, no. But I will
tell you what we are against. We are against doctors making a profit
while seniors get the shaft.
You see, the $270 billion in the Medicare cuts can only come from
providers or from beneficiaries. And every time the Republicans cut a
deal with the providers, they have to cut more health care for seniors.
Let me tell you, the American seniors are getting the message. They
truly are. They understand this GOP shell game. Again, what I want to
tell you is what happened yesterday, because it is equally important to
find out about these two groups and what happened to them.
When you take a look at the group that came, the National Council for
Senior Citizens, they came to Capitol Hill, they did not quite get the
same kind of reception that the AMA did. The seniors got no meeting
with the Speaker; they received no concessions, no deals. Instead, they
were arrested. That is right, there were 15 senior citizens, some in
wheelchairs, some with canes, that were arrested yesterday. They were
put in handcuffs and they were taken away in a paddy-wagon.
What was their crime? They asked to speak in the people's House. That
is what they were asking for, is an opportunity to participate in our
democracy. And we have right here the photographs of those who were
taken away. You will hear from some of my colleagues in a few minutes
that they were there when this happened. You got here Teresa McKenna,
age 68, from Falls Church, VA, with handcuffs being put on her. You
have Roberta Saxton right over there, who is from Maryland, and she is
67 years old. There she is being handcuffed.
Let me just say that they simply went, this group of seniors, to ask
questions of the Committee on Commerce about the Republican plan, what
is in it, what does it mean in terms of our lives, and they came to
exercise their right as citizens. But they were turned away. The lights
were turned off in the committee room and they were taken out to the
paddy wagons.
Let me just say that we found out yesterday that daring to ask a
question and asking that question, which is the right of every American
citizen, that is punishable by a rest.
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks, because I know my
colleagues want to join in this debate this evening, but when it comes
to the special interests, the Republicans, this Congress and the
majority in this Congress, they are all ears for the special interests.
But when it comes to the people in this nation, they turn a defense
ear. That is not what we should be about.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. If the gentlewoman will yield, I
really wonder who the Republicans are listening to, and I would like to
hear later from members of that committee. Because as I am reading, a
Republican Congressman the gentleman from Iowa, Dr. Greg Ganske, from
the Des Moines Register, said,
I guarantee you that these reductions will be bad for
quality health care. Not just for our senior citizens, but
also for working families. If Medicare and Medicaid cuts are
too deep, hospitals and doctors will shy away from serving
the elderly and poor or will try to push costs to the non-
elderly, which could further increase the number of
uninsured, or the quality of the whole health care system
could decline.
Now, that is a Member of this body, who is a Republican and who is
also a doctor.
Then from the New York Times, the American College of Surgeons, the
American College of Surgeons said today that the Republican proposals
would reduce Medicare payments for all surgical services by 10 to 12
percent next year. Cynthia Brown, manager of the College's Washington
office, said these cuts would heavily penalize surgeons.
Maybe that is who they might be listening to, just the persons on the
money-making end.
I have high regard for any physician that is attempting to practice
good medicine. But I do not believe that even the physicians want to
make it uncomfortable for our seniors and rob them of quality care just
for a paycheck.
Now, according to a poll that was done by Lou Harris & Associates
this month, 86 percent of wealthy Americans oppose Medicare cuts to pay
for the tax breaks. Americans across the board overwhelmingly oppose
using Medicare as a cash cow to pay for the
[[Page H 10033]]
Republican plan to offer tax breaks to the very wealthy.
A recently released Harris poll suggests that the opposition is even
stronger among the wealthiest Americans. When the question was asked
``Do you favor or oppose cutting the future costs of Medicare to pay
for a tax break,'' 86 percent of Americans with income of $50,000 or
more said they did not favor doing this, while only 83 percent of all
Americans said they opposed the plan to cut services for our children
and our senior citizens for a tax break for the wealthy.
While the tax break for the wealthy is being given attention, the tax
break for the working poor has been taken away. It seems to me that we
are not listening. Perhaps there are persons inside listening only to
selective voices, but they are not listening to the majority of
Americans, and this is a body that is of, by, and for the people.
So who are we hearing these quotes from? Selected persons that are
making statements we all agree with, or from those persons that simply
want to make a plea for the health of their future, and they get
arrested?
They are proposing medical savings accounts. Well, we are talking
about 80 percent of these people that have worked all of their working
days paying into Social Security with the promise and the contract that
when they retire and reach their days on a fixed income, they would
have available to them a fund that they have paid into for health care.
While Medicaid was essentially passed as a program for our children,
almost 70 percent of those dollars are being paid for long-term care
for our seniors. And why is that? It is because our seniors do not have
the money now. They are very stretched with what is being offered, and
we are about to swipe that away from them.
Who are we listening to? Are we the only persons listening to the
people of this Nation? I am hearing desperate voices. Why are the
Republicans not listening? Because the polls are not made up by us, it
is an independent poll. And I hear the question, we want to save our
children's future.
Well, if we want to save our children's future, they must have a
healthy present. If we do not provide for our children just the basic
health care, they will not have a good future. They are being cheated
out of the dollars even set aside for them now, because most of it by
necessity is going for the care of our senior citizens.
I want to know who, who are the Republicans listening to. They are
not listening to America.
Ms. DeLAURO. I would love to have my colleague from Illinois, Mr.
Durbin, join.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, thank you for the special
order. It is a shame we have to come here late at night with an almost
empty Chamber to talk about an issue which is literally on the minds of
every American.
We are in the eleventh month of this Gingrich revolution in the House
of Representatives. America remembers when it got started, some of the
promises that were made.
Do you recall the promise from the Speaker that every amendment
considered on the floor would go right up on the Internet so all across
America Americans would know exactly what was being debated? There was
to be no effort to put things through without clear scrutiny.
Do you recall the promise of open hearings so that every American
would know what was going on in the House of Representatives under this
new Gingrich revolution? Do you recall the promise of open rules, so
that we could have as many amendments offered and have a healthy
debate, a deliberative procedure?
Well, you may remember those promises but, frankly, take a look at
what is happening with Medicare and Medicaid. A 421-page bill that has
been heard one or two days at the most in committee, destined to come
here to the floor of the House of Representatives next week, and we
hear tonight from the majority leader, Mr. Armey, we are going to be
given two hours of debate.
Well, one would think surely two hours is enough. It cannot be that
complicated. For 70 million Americans it is very complicated. Medicare
is literally, literally, their lifeline, as to whether or not they can
obtain affordable quality health care. For my mother, for parents and
grandparents of so many Americans, Medicare is more than just another
government program. It is a lifeline.
The Republicans want to cut $270 billion out of this program. You
say, well, in Federal terms that cannot have much impact. But it will,
in terms of the services that are offered to our parents and
grandparents, in terms of the payments to the providers, in terms of
the expenses which may be shifted to the families of our elderly when
the elderly themselves cannot pay.
On the Medicaid side, the story is even more horrific. Half of the
payments to nursing homes across America are made by Medicaid. The
Republicans are coming on the floor with a proposal that does not
protect families of those in nursing homes from having their own assets
attacked once the elderly person in the nursing home runs out of money.
It has got a long Federal term; it is called spousal impoverishment.
In the State of Texas they brought it to the vernacular, it was the
hock-your-home provision. Once grandma or grandpa is in a nursing home
and runs out of money, they go back to the family and say maybe you
ought to pay now, since they run out of money. The Federal law protects
that from happening today. The Republican proposal does not contain
that protection.
Is that an important thing to debate for families across America? Is
that worth two hours of our time at least? You bet it is. Instead, we
are going to have this jammed down our throats. And when senior
citizens came to this Capitol building and and said they wanted to know
what is in this bill, they wanted to know the impact it will have, they
were greeted by the Gingrich revolutionaries with handcuffs. Sixty-
seven and 68-year-old ladies who come into a committee room, irritate
the chairman, and they are escorted out in handcuffs? What has this
come to?
Frankly, what we are dealing with here is a fact that has been made
known by the gentlewoman from Connecticut. If you are a special
interest group, if you have a political action committee, if you have
the clout, you get a personal meeting with Speaker Gingrich and a deal.
The doctors got it. I guess we should say God bless the doctors. They
know how to work this system. But the seniors, obviously, have not
figured it out. They still think this is on the square. They think you
walk into a hearing room and learn what is in the bill and debate the
bill and ask tough, yes, sir, tough questions. They were escorted out
in handcuffs.
Thank goodness, the charges were dropped on them. But consider the
embarrassment to these people who took time out of their own busy lives
at a point in their lives when they are retired to come to the U.S.
Capitol here to be arrested.
Now, the Speaker tells us if he does not get his way on this bill, he
is going to shut down the Government. He is going to shut down the
Government. Well, I have got a bill that I would like him to consider
then if he would like to shut it down. If he wants a train wreck, it is
called no budget, no pay. It says if Members of Congress are witnesses
and part of a train wreck, then as the train crew, they are not going
to get a paycheck.
{time} 2015
That's right. We close down the Federal Government. We close down the
paychecks for Members of Congress starting with the Speaker of the U.S.
House of Representatives. If we think we can be that irresponsible, to
jeopardize critical programs like Medicare and Medicaid in the Federal
Government, we do not deserve a paycheck. That is my bill.
I hope Members on the floor tonight, Mr. Speaker, who are joining in
this special order will try to address the central theme here, the
central question: If the so-called proposal to save Medicare is so
good, so right, and so timely, why are the Republicans hiding it? Why
will they not bring it out in the public for us to have a hearing? Why
can we have no more than 2 hours of debate on the floor?
I will tell my colleagues why. Because these crazy ideas cannot stand
the glare of sunlight. They cannot make it in the court of public
opinion. And the bottom line is, Americans
[[Page H 10034]]
know, as sure as I am standing here, we are cutting Medicare for a tax
cut for the wealthiest people in this country. It is Republican
trickle-down economics. It is good news for doctors in big business,
but not good news for grandparents.
I thank the gentlewoman for taking the special order.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Illinois, and It is the question of----
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield 1 minute?
Ms. DeLAURO. What is before the light of day and what are we going to
show to the public so that they can have an opportunity to be heard.
I understand that my colleagues want me to yield. I do have folks
that want to have an opportunity, and they have been here for a long
time to get to speak, so I want to accommodate them and then I will be
happy to entertain your comments.
Mr. GREENWOOD. If the gentlewoman would just yield for 15 seconds.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman for 15 seconds.
Mr. GREENWOOD. My recommendation, and I have done this before, is
instead of having the taxpayers pay for an hour of one side of the
issues is to engage in debate, to have an actual discussion.
The facts presented about the arrest yesterday, if one iota of what
has been said tonight was true, we would be joined together. The fact
of the matter is, it is completely untrue. If we would share time over
the next hour and a half, Americans could learn the truth. If my
colleagues do not want to share time, it is sort of like saying they do
not want the truth to be known.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, and I
have the highest regards for my colleague, except that those of us on
this side of the aisle have been calling for hearings, for debate. We
actually had an amendment on this floor of the House where we said let
us go for 4 weeks of hearings.
We have had 6 days of hearings on a highway bill, 28 days on
Whitewater, 10 days on Ruby Ridge, 10 days on Waco, and yet we were
only allowed 1 day of hearings in this body on Medicare, and I might
add, on Medicaid, zero hearings. So that I am pleased that my colleague
has come down, but the long and the short of it is, it is truly
disingenuous to come down and ask for time when this is our time to
talk about this issue and we have asked over and over and over again.
I would like to really ask, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee], who wants to get involved in this discussion, to make her voice
heard on this issue.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Connecticut for her leadership, and I comment as well on the colleague
on the other side of the aisle, with great respect for wanting to air
fully a matter that really Democrats have been calling for a full
airing for months and months and months.
Be it briefly, I am just going to comment and draw the attention of
the American public to what I think visually they saw yesterday. I am a
little surprised and taken aback that we can explain everything further
than what the cameras visually showed, and that was that an elderly
citizen--and I think that we have missed the alphabet. Children, c-h-i-
l-d-r-e-n, taken care of by Medicaid. And then our senior citizens, s-
e-n-i-o-r-s, seniors who have given to this country. We have missed our
learning in school. We have them in handcuffs.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what more we can explain than that this
senior citizen, who was handcuffed in the hearing room, was simply
trying to express her opposition to the fact that she would be paying
higher premiums; that she would not be able to choose a physician that
she had developed a confidence in.
Yesterday and the day before was a slam dunk, not for cancer
prevention, but I guess for the proliferation of cancer. When we deny
women the opportunity for a mammogram right in the Halls of Congress,
where we were trying to attempt to reform health care and provide
incentives for Medicare and Medicaid recipients, we slam dunked cancer
screening, slam dunked preventive activities by refusing amendments
Democrats had offered.
Likewise, while this woman was handcuffed, rather than respond to an
amendment by the Democrats that offered opportunities for better rural
and urban health care, giving incentives to primary care physicians who
went into areas that were little utilized, or provided little service
in terms of medical care, that too was slam dunked; that too was
refused by the Republicans.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation here where my colleague on the
other side of the aisle is claiming that there is an explanation to a
lady in handcuffs. I do not understand that, because it clearly shows
someone who was trying to express their views on Medicare, the
opposition, to the hidden and covert Republican plan, taken away by
Gestapo-like tactics.
I am not reflecting on the great policemen we have on Capitol Hill.
They were following instructions. But they were taken away when they
were simply trying to say give us an understanding, have a hearing and
let us have input. Let us not cut $270 billion from Medicare on the
basis of giving tax cuts to those making over $100,000.
Mr. Speaker, to the gentlewoman from Connecticut I simply wanted to
say to her that this is appalling. This is one that should incense all
America. This is not a question of whether we should have a reasonable
debate. We had hearings out on the grassy area in front of the Capitol
because the doors were closed to Democrats to be able to hear from
constituents about these issues.
I think now the point is the Republicans have presented their case
under cover of cause. We are here now tonight shedding light and asking
the American people to stand up along with us to bring back reality and
reason to Medicare reform and health care reform and realize that our
children and our seniors, the alphabets, count in America today. And I
yield back my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas,
Sheila Jackson-Lee, for her eloquent statement and remarks. She has
been very, very active in this area over the last several months.
To shed some further light on what is going on with seniors and the
intimidation, I would like to yield time to my colleague, David Skaggs,
from Colorado.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for
the chance to participate this evening.
I do not know what may have happened in the hearing room yesterday,
it is an unfortunate scene, obviously, but it is, I think, not
coincidental that the day before we are to take up floor consideration
of this legislation next week, there will be a hearing in a
subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight at
which the National Council on Senior Citizens has been called to
testify.
They have become essentially the favorite whipping group of many who
are masquerading a new piece of anti-first-amendment legislation, a gag
rule for nonprofits and many other people in this country. The National
Council for Senior Citizens have really been the whipping group for
their effort to silence people who want to participate in the political
life of this country.
Interestingly, the National Council has received a questionnaire, as
did previous witnesses called before this subcommittee on the so-called
Istook-MicIntosh-Ehrlich proposal, a questionnaire that calls them to
account for all of their political activities over the last 5 years,
State, Federal, and local, and all of the political activities of any
organizations that may be affiliated with them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, just stop and think what that sounds like. At least
it brings back memories for me of the early 1950's in this country in
which free American citizens were hauled before committees of Congress
with the full power and authority, and the chilling effect that that
can have if that authority is improperly used, and taken to task for
the exercise of their rights, using their time and their resources,
their rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
Now, we have had a lot of things going on in this place that many of
us disagree with this year, but if we start
[[Page H 10035]]
tampering with the lifeblood of this democracy, which is the free flow
of information, the full participation in the political life of this
country of every American and every group of Americans that has a claim
to make, an argument to make, a case to make before their elected
representatives in the Congress of the United States, we are in real
trouble.
That is the corrective device for this democracy, is the free flow of
ideas and information and, yes, indeed, criticism. It can be awkward at
times, it can be unpleasant and offensive at times, ideas that we
disagree with often are, but when we start to impede that fundamental
tenet of free political expression in this country, and that is what is
at issue here through the McIntosh-Istook proposal and its application
to groups like the National Council of Senior Citizens, we are in
trouble. Beware. Stand up for your rights.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to my colleague
from Colorado, because in this Chamber he has an outstanding reputation
for someone who is vigilant about the Constitution and the rights of
the people in this Nation. We are all, and everyone should be very,
very grateful to him for being that kind of a watchdog.
We cannot really see these constitutional rights erode, because
vigorous informed debate and differences in ideas is what makes this
Nation great. I share your concern, because for people who are living
this every day, the way we have, we are seeing that if the majority
does not agree with a point of view, they do not agree with a piece of
legislation, it is either not discussed or it is given short shrift, or
it is given 1 or 2 hours of debate, or it is taken up in the middle of
the night so that there cannot be that free and informed debate on
issues that are vital to this Nation's survival.
This in particular, the National Council of Senior Citizens, has been
the most vocal group, in fact, about what will happen if we have $270
billion in cuts for Medicare, and $182 billion cuts in Medicaid.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, it is
especially ironic, I think, that a citizens group wanting to present
their views, to lobby, if you will, are subjected to this kind of
regime and the effort to silence them is being characterized, or
caricatured, as lobbying reform. Meanwhile, the real lobbying reform
that needs to go on in this place is shunted off as something we simply
do not have time for, even though we have already passed it last year
twice.
It really gives us reason to stop and think where are the values
here? Who is being heard? Whose lobbying is being preferred, I would
ask the gentlewoman?
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, that is true. We voted that twice last
year, and Democrats have brought the issue of lobby reform and gift ban
to this House probably five times in the last several months. Each time
we are told that there is no time to do it, we cannot take it up. In
the one instance where it did come up, it was voted down. It is now
going to be postponed until some other time, and when a lobbying group,
just in a week, in the face of seniors who were arrested, came in and
within 2 days time, within 2 days time, changed their tune and were
rewarded for doing that.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his vigilance.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, not only was I
in that committee room, I am a member of this committee and we, the
Democrats on that committee, have asked over and over and over again
for hearings on the Medicare bill because we are very concerned that
there is stuff in there that nobody understands.
We wanted a hearing with the trustees. We hear the Republicans talk
about the trustees' report. We asked for a hearing with them. We asked
for a hearing with seniors. We thought that maybe we could have the AMA
there. We could have everybody there to talk about this bill. But we
were refused a hearing.
{time} 2030
Now, yesterday before the markup, the markup on a 400-page bill, of
which there have been no hearings on that particular bill, a group of
senior citizens came into the hearing room, into the markup room. They
had respectfully asked, no, I would say they begged for answers.
They said, What is this bill going to do to our health care? They
begged. They said, Just tell us, give us some time, talk to us about
what is in the bill. And they were a group, some very, very senior.
I would like you to look at this picture here of this lady. In this
picture, that police person is not putting a bracelet on that lady's
arms. He is putting handcuffs, handcuffs. Her name is Roberta Saxton.
She is age 67.
Now, I am a senior. I understand how frightening that must have been.
Well, what happened in that committee room was quite extraordinary
and quite horrifying. All the Republicans left the room. The lights
were turned off in that room. It was pitch black, except for the lights
of some camera people.
We called for the lights to go on again. This was the people's House.
This is the place where things are supposed to be out in the open, out
in the sunlight. The lights did go on finally. The Republicans returned
to the committee and called for arresting of these seniors, seniors
like Roberta. There were two people in wheelchairs. There were some who
were 90 years old. These were people asking about their health care.
We then had an extraordinary event. The press were asked to--no, they
were told by the police to leave the room.
The press are the eyes and the ears of the American public. They were
asked to leave the hearing room. And then the police were told by the
chairman, I presume, to begin arresting, arresting these seniors. I and
four other Members, Democratic Members, went with the seniors, as they
were pushed out in wheelchairs with canes, they were there to ask, tell
us what is in the bill. And what did they get? They got arrested.
We went with them, some of the Members, just to see that they were
all right. These were old people. These were frightened people. These
were people, American people.
Well, we know what is in the bill. There are $272 billion of cuts,
$272 billions of cuts. What do those cuts mean? Well, obviously, they
are not going to mean huge cuts for the doctors because the doctors got
a hearing. They got a hearing. The seniors did not.
Now, is it not interesting, why we did not have a hearing? We were
told there was no time for a hearing. And yet today in that same
committee we had a hearing, oh, there was a hearing, oh, yes, there was
time, on the cellular industry. Well, that is fine. That is very
interesting. But the cellular industry does not affect every senior in
this country, and Medicare does, except it vitally affects seniors like
this lady in the photograph, this lady here. You see the photograph.
She came to talk to her representatives. She was arrested.
But the special interests were not arrested. The lobbyists were in
the room all through the markup. The AMA got a meeting. Why did not the
seniors get a meeting? Why did not the Democratic Members get a
meeting? We asked for a hearing. Why was the press removed from that
room? Why was the public thrown out? Why were seniors in wheelchairs
removed?
Well, as I say, I went with them and other Members went with them,
because you know what they were there to do. They were there to do
their duty. It is the duty of the American people to come to their
elected officials and say, Tell us, tell us what is in here.
Well, I guess in our committee we have found that we have lots of
time, lots of time for the special interests. But we have no time for
the special people, the seniors of America whose Medicare is being cut
every minute we sit here and pass this bill with no hearings.
I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me to tell what happened when I
was there, what happened to senior Americans who came to the people's
House to ask that their questions be answered and instead they got
arrested.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oregon for the
eyewitness account and really for her concern and her compassion in
accompanying Theresa McKenna and others who were taken away. It is a
gesture of the kind of concern and the kind of individual the
gentlewoman is and the kind of representative the gentlewoman is, of
the interests of the people
[[Page H 10036]]
that she represents and all people who come here who ought to be
treated in a very, very special way. Because without the people who are
out there in each of our districts, we do not serve in this people's
House. We only serve at their pleasure, and we need to keep that very,
very much in mind when we are supposed to be doing the people's
business in this House every single day.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to my colleague, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], to join in this
discussion. I thank the gentlewoman for her continued interest.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
and thank her for arranging this opportunity so that our colleagues and
the Americans can understand what we are really talking about here
today. We are really talking about opportunity for all Americans to
have access, to have access to express their views. I think yesterday
we understood how democracy worked well for some and not well at all
for others.
If you have a lot of money and you are very wealthy and influential,
you get a hearing, but also you get a great deal, too. But if you are
an ordinary citizen and you have faith in your government and come to
express redress, they simply wanted to find out what was going on. They
wanted to say to the committee how health care is so important. They
wanted to know how that plan would enable them to provide for their
health care, because many of them, as you know, are people who receive
less than $25,000 a year, average $13,000, because they have to make
choices, choices whether they will be able to have food or
prescriptions. They simply wanted to have an opportunity to redress.
This is a slippery slope we are going on. It is a dangerous
prescription for democracy, if indeed we are going to reward those who
are willing to support certain legislation with great deals; and, yet,
those who want to express their opposition, we reward them by having
them arrested. This is a democracy. We should be outraged at that.
We should really be outraged at that, that the average American, in
particular senior citizens, people who are going to be impacted more
than anyone else simply wanted to have an opportunity to see their
government working, this is democracy at its best and at its worst. It
works well if you have money. It does not work so well if you do not
have money.
Let me just say one final concluding statement. They would have said,
if we had listened to them, that they are not statistics, they are
people, they are grandmothers, they are aunts, they are grandfathers,
they are people we know. They are people who are struggling. They are
families in this country who really want a chance to have just an
ordinary life. That is not too much to ask of people. And it is not too
much to ask of us as legislators to be responsive to those individuals.
In fact, in North Carolina there are 999,000 Medicare patients, 985,000
Medicaid recipients.
If you combine that, North Carolina will lose $15.5 billion over a 7-
year period. That is a lot of money to pull out of the infrastructure.
That is going to affect a lot of Americans. We have not had hearings on
that. We are about to vote on something next week that is going to be
very, very dangerous.
I want to thank, again, the gentlewomn from Connecticut who has
provided outstanding leadership in bringing the clarity of the issues
and the impact.
Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record the remainder of my
remarks.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday this Congress punished senior citizens who
challenged cuts in Medicare and rewarded physicians who cut a deal on
Medicare.
Something is wrong with those priorities.
When those who voice their opposition are silenced and only those who
surrender support are promoted, we have a dangerous prescription.
The proposed cuts in Medicare is a glaring example of the politics of
division and dual standard.
Mr. Speaker, the seniors who visited the Commerce Committee wanted an
opportunity to speak about the plan that we will vote on next week,
because many of them will not be able to afford health care, will get
less quality care and will lose the security of a system that has
served millions of Americans well for 30 years.
That is because the majority wants to cut the funds for Medicare by
$270 billion.
These cuts go too far, and would not be necessary, if the majority
would simply put off their plan to give a free tax ride of $245 billion
to the wealthiest Americans.
The cut that is being proposed is roughly three times higher than any
previous cut.
This cut will reduce the overall size of the Medicare program by 25
percent--raising the cost of premiums and copayments to each of North
Carolina's 999,000 Medicare beneficiaries by more than $2,000, over the
next 7 years.
And, when the Medicare cuts are combined with the cuts in the
Medicaid Program, Federal health care dollars coming into North
Carolina will be reduced by more than $15 billion.
The Medicaid cuts affect North Carolinians of all ages--the elderly,
children, the disabled, the poor. There are some 985,000 Medicaid
recipients in our State. We would be forced to eliminate coverage for
almost half of those Medicaid recipients.
If we had taken the time to listen to the seniors who visited
Congress on Wednesday, they would remind us that these are not just
numbers. These are people.
These are grandmothers and grandfathers. These are families,
struggling to survive in an ailing economy. These are not just faces in
the crowd. These are neighbors--people we know.
The Medicare cuts will be especially painful, since more than 8 out
of 10 of all Medicare benefits go to senior citizens with incomes of
$25,000 or less!
Those who are pushing these plans fought the creation of Medicare in
1965, and now, in 1995, are seeking to do what they failed to do in
1965--cut the comfort of retirement from our senior citizens.
It is estimated that these plans will cost North Carolinians a loss
of over $3,000 for each Medicare recipient in North Carolina between
now and the year 2002, and a loss of some $900 for each recipient each
year thereafter. And while Medicare support is declining, the
population in North Carolina is growing.
This year, we have 6.6 million people. Soon, we will have 7.2
million. Thus, more people will be forced to depend on less money for
adequate health care.
Medicare beneficiaries will be forced to pay more and get less and
they will have far less choice in their health care providers. These
so-called savings that will come from Medicare will actually be paid
out of the pockets of seniors and working families in America.
Rural North Carolina, where health care is already behind, will be
especially hard hit by these cuts.
Medicare spending in the rural areas of North Carolina will be cut by
$3.3 billion--a 20-percent cut in the year 2002 alone. Worse, rural
North Carolina will lose some of the limited number of hospitals we
have.
Because of poverty, rural hospitals lose money on Medicare, while
urban hospitals make a small profit. Medicare accounts for between 50
and 80 percent of the revenue of rural hospitals.
The typical rural hospital, under the majority's plan, will lose some
$5 million in Medicare funding, over 7 years. That kind of loss can not
be sustained.
Rural hospitals already need 5,084 more primary care physicians to
have the same doctor to population ratio as the Nation as a whole.
Yet, with the proposed, severe cuts, according to the American
Medical Association, the institution that yesterday made the deal, the
cuts ``will unquestionably cause some physicians to leave Medicare.''
We all support the concept of a balanced budget, and acknowledge that
some sacrifices must be made; but we should not place the burden solely
on those who can least afford it and let those who can afford it get a
free tax ride! Where is the balance in that kind of budget?
During the last Congress, the very people who now seek our trust in
their Medicare and Medicaid cutting plan rejected every initiative that
would have strengthened the Medicare Trust Fund even further.
The fact is that they are using the trust fund solvency issue as a
smoke screen.
They are using the Medicare program as a bank for the best off, so
that they can fulfill their campaign promise--a tax cut for the
wealthy.
If they dropped the idea of a tax cut for the wealthy, they would not
need to make such deep cuts in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
The so-called looming Medicare bankruptcy is more fiction than fact.
It is a very convenient myth, but it is not reality.
The fact is that, with the proposed cuts in Medicare, senior citizens
will be seriously hurt, while not one penny would be contributed to the
trust fund.
This plan will mean tougher times for families and especially for
senior citizens--those who have labored a lifetime under the belief
[[Page H 10037]]
that they truly had a Contract With America. They can barely afford
health care now.
When the majority adds $2,400 to their health care costs by the year
2002, many will have to choose between heat and health, a warm coat or
a trip to the doctor--many may have to even choose between eating and
health.
Something is wrong with those priorities.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Bonior], the chief deputy whip, the minority whip. There are not many
words to say what kind of strength and deliberation he has brought to
this discussion and of the serious cuts in Medicare.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I thank my
colleague from North Carolina for her words this evening and my friend,
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], for his thoughts on this
important issue, the arresting of the seniors who were trying to
express their views on an issue that is critical not only to them but I
believe to the rest of the country as well.
I am going to demand an apology from the Speaker and the Republican
leadership to these seniors. Nothing short of that is in order. It
seems to me that that was one of the most disgraceful exhibitions of
thwarting democracy that I have seen in my years in this institution.
I was not shocked and I was not surprised because, quite frankly,
this whole experience over the last year has been a narrowing of voices
in this institution. It started off at the beginning of this Congress
when the Black Caucus was disbanded, the Hispanic Caucus, the
Environmental Caucus, the Women's Caucus, and then it continued when
they took away our research arm, the Democratic Study Group of the
Democratic Party. And then it continued further with closed rules where
we could not debate fully the issues at hand. And then it continued
further as we took on the most important issue perhaps of this
Congress, Medicare and Medicaid both. We got a total of one hearing.
There is a narrowing of voices.
Then we read today in the newspaper that the Speaker is going to
close the place down because he cannot get his way. He has told the
committees to close up shop. I am going to make the deals for you. They
are going to come out on the floor of the House with my imprimatur on
it or nobody's imprimatur on it.
I would like to talk about a couple back-room deals here this
evening, particularly the one that was cut with the AMA, the American
Medical Association, recently.
I want to trace that for just a second this evening because it is
worth going over. After sharply criticizing the Republican Medicare
plan last week for including price rollbacks that will impact on
the quality of care, the American Medical Association quickly changed
its tune. What caused this change of heart, it was a back-room deal
with the Speaker which limits Medicare's planned fee rollback for
physicians. In a closed-door meeting which occurred late at night while
the committees, by the way, were busy, the Committee on Ways and Means
was busy working to pass the Medicare plan, Speaker Gingrich cut a deal
that brought the support, bought the support of the AMA.
The details of this secret deal have remained closed to the public,
but according to an AMA official, the deal is worth billions of dollars
to doctors. Let me say that again. According to an AMA official, the
deal is worth billions of dollars to doctors. In simple terms, the AMA
named a price, and the Republicans met it.
Let me trace exactly what happened here over the past week. On
Wednesday, the 4th of October, there was criticism. James Stacey of the
American Medical Association is quoted in the New York Times as saying:
This Republican Medicare plan causes real problems for the AMA. It
would be a major blow to the traditional fee-for-service Medicare
program.
Tuesday afternoon, October 10, less than a week later, more
criticism. Kirk Johnson, AMA General Counsel, quoted in the New York
Times: What we cannot agree to are price rollbacks that will impact on
the quality of care.
The reductions were so severe, he said, that they will unquestionably
cause some physicians to leave Medicare.
Tuesday afternoon, October 10th, the deal is struck. Johnson and the
AMA officials meet with the Republican leader in the Speaker's office.
The AMA calls the press to the Speaker's office to announce their
support for the Republican Medicare plan. On Thursday, October 12, the
details emerge. The Wall Street Journal reports on the AMA-Gingrich
secret deal. And I quote: ``Kirk Johnson, the AMA's general counsel,
suggested to several reporters that the improvements would be worth
billions of dollars to physicians.''
The New York Times quotes Johnson commenting further on the secret
deal, and I quote: ``It's wrong to suggest that the AMA endorsement was
contingent on billions of dollars. There isn't a precise figure. We
don't know the amount.''
So what we have here is the Republicans and the AMA coming together
and refusing to disclose the final details of the deal. What we can be
sure of is that doctors got what they wanted while seniors, like the
two that we were talking about this evening, were left out in the cold,
were taken handcuffed by authorities out of a committee room and were
not allowed to speak.
I want to talk about the Speaker's own words, because I think they
are instructive here this evening.
{time} 2045
On Tuesday, Speaker Gingrich sealed his backroom deal, as I said,
with the AMA, and the deal occurred while the Committee on Ways and
Means and the Committee on Commerce were acting on the GOP Medicare
plan. But history buffs will no doubt remember these immortal words to
live by that were uttered by the Speaker when he appeared before the
AMA on March 24, 1993, and I want to quote what the Speaker said. He
said, ``If I had one plea in mind, it would be for simple honesty. The
American people deserve to be told the truth. They deserve to be told
the truth by the President. If I had a second plea, it would be for
openness.'' That is what he said. The Speaker said, ``It would be for
openness. The American people, when you are dealing with their lives,
when your dealing with 14 percent of the gross national product,
deserve to have an open opportunity to understand who is in the room.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, the American people did not see what was in the room
when you cut the deal that was worth billions of dollars to the docs in
the country. They did not see what was in the room when you made a
special deal on your medical accounts and, for those who are not
familiar with that, these medical savings accounts come at a price as
well.
The main advocate for the medical savings account was a gentleman by
the name of Mr. Rooney, who has Golden Rule Insurance, and a CBS News
analysis of Golden Rule and Rooney and associates' donations to
Republican causes are as follows: Gingrich campaign, $45,000;
Republican Party, $1,200,000; GOPAC, $157,000. These are the
contributions by Mr. Rooney and Golden Rule Insurance Co.
So the deals have been cut. The seniors have been left out in the
cold, and as my colleagues have suggested, this is a shameful episode
in the history of this Congress.
The thing that just drives me to the wall, quite frankly, is that we
are talking about people here who make a very meager amount of money. A
report issued a month ago by our Labor Department said that the seniors
in this country, 60 percent, I want to repeat this, 60 percent of the
seniors in the United States of America have incomes, combined incomes,
retirement and Social Security incomes of $10,000 a year or less. Sixty
percent of combined incomes of $10,000 a year or less, combined
retirement and Social Security.
They are asking, the Republicans are asking those folks to pay an
extra thousand bucks out of their pocket while the docs get billions of
dollars' worth of deals that have been cut. Mr. Rooney and his
insurance company are going to make millions, if not billions, of
dollars on this.
Something is wrong in America, ladies and gentlemen, when we are
doing that to the most vulnerable of our society, the seniors and the
young people who are taking the hit on Medicaid.
[[Page H 10038]]
Medicaid provides health care for two out of every five children in
our country, and that is being cut by $182 billion.
So I thank my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Ms. DeLauro], for taking this time and for giving me the opportunity
to express my concerns and outrage over what we have seen here in the
Capitol in the last several days.
Ms. DeLAURO. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], for making his comments. Clearly, those children
were not in the room. Seniors were not in the room. Working
families were not in the room. But Mr. Rooney and the AMA are in the
room, and I think you were very clear in delineating how that process
has worked here over the last several days.
I might just add one point to what you have said. Our Republican
colleagues have said that they are going to save the Medicare Program,
and they make reference to the trustees' report of what is needed and
what is necessary to save it, and the trustees, what they do not pull
out from what the trustees have said is that $90 billion would be the
amount of money to take us to the year 2006 and so forth. What is
happening with the additional $180 billion?
Mr. BONIOR. It is going to a tax cut that will benefit primarily the
most wealthy individuals and corporations in our society.
Ms. DeLAURO. Furthermore, what they will say, our colleagues will
say, and probably say here this evening, is that we do not have a plan.
Well, first of all, Medicare is a plan, if we can fix some portions of
it, which we need to and are willing to, without destroying it, and
there are a number of suggestions in which to do that.
Second, in the Committee on Ways and Means there was a Democratic
alternative that was put forward. It was for $90 billion to cover what
the trustees have talked about, and that was voted down, and that gives
me an opportunity to have my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Stupak], join this debate.
Mr. STUPAK. Two points I would like to make, really, three points.
First of all, you say, no plans. Democrats offered two plans in
Committee on Commerce last night. Both were shot down on parliamentary
rules only. I offered one plan, only 39 pages long, which cuts out
fraud and abuse. We can save the system there. Also, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Waxman] offered a plan. Never a comment on it. We were
just ruled out of order. I defeated one of the parliamentary inquiries
on my legislation. Then they brought up another one, because I used the
word ``hospital,'' hospital trust fund, which is part of Medicare,
because I used ``hospital,'' part A. We have jurisdiction over part B.
They ruled me out of order and silenced my plan before we could even
have a vote.
The other point I would like to make, the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Bonior] mentioned the MSA's, medical savings accounts. You know,
even Ross Perot says this is dangerous, go slowly, do not do it too
quickly. We offered a proposal to do a pilot program on MSA's. Again,
that was defeated.
These figures you mentioned, I say to the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Bonior], about the payment due in 1996, $3.1 billion, then again a
total over 7 years as we are trying to save Medicare, $15.3 billion.
Understand, folks, that comes immediately out of the Medicare trust
fund. There will not be a bill to the American people. It is a bill to
the seniors who have paid into the Medicare trust fund.
As soon as these seniors sign up for the medical savings account, you
have to transfer. Here is a trust fund they are claiming is going to go
bankrupt, so let us further bankrupt it by taking out these MSA's,
medical savings accounts, before anyone even knows if they work. In the
private sectors they have not worked.
As I said, even Ross Perot said do not do it, go slowly, you are
playing on thin ice here. You can bankrupt, a spiraling bankruptcy,
into the Medicare system before it ever even gets going, instead of
needing $90 billion to save the system. If the MSA's come out, we will
need at least $105 billion plus. They may work, but do we have to throw
all of our health care system, the seniors, health care system, to an
MSA plan and try to force them into these medical savings accounts
without even knowing if it is going to work? Is Medicare not a valuable
program that helps our seniors? Do they want us to gamble with their
health care system on a system that is not even tried, a system that
will immediately start draining the Medicare trust fund? That does not
make sense.
Mr. BONIOR. These medical savings accounts, they are for the healthy
and the wealthy, basically. These insurance companies are not going to
take care of you if you have got a preexisting condition. They cherry-
pick. That is how they make their dollars. So we are going to be
providing hard-earned Medicare dollars in our trust fund to people who
frankly will not use it, will not need it, and the deductible is
$10,000 on this thing.
You know, it is something that we ought not to be fooling around with
at this time because of its very nature and who it is targeted for. It
is not targeted for the average person who needs it, and it benefits a
few insurance companies that basically are going to be cherry-picking.
Ms. DeLAURO. That point that you made about the $10,000, that is in
the very fine print. An insurance company under these medical savings
accounts could charge up to $10,000 deductible, and that is truly
incredible with what the seniors would have to go through. But once
again, you are taking a look at a special interest that would derive
real benefit from this effort at the expense of seniors who are on
limited incomes.
Mr. STUPAK. You mentioned earlier, you were talking about the
incident that happened on the Committee on Commerce. I sit on the
Committee on Commerce. I am a former police officer. I spent 12-13
years in law enforcement. In fact, one of my posts was with Michigan
State police at the State capital post. We had to go periodically to
demonstrations outside the capital hearing rooms, things like that.
I would say in this picture here, you see a police officer putting
what we call flexicuffs on this individual. That is a standard
operating procedure.
I want to say that Capital Police who were put in a tough, a very
difficult situation, handled themselves very professionally. They were
very courteous.
Not only was I at the committee, but I went down to where this
photograph was taken in the basement of the Rayburn Building, as they
were loading the individuals in the squad cars to take them to the
booking station. I went down to the police captain, police
headquarters, where these people were being booked, and observed the
procedure. Having been a former police officer, needless to say, I was
somewhat interested.
I also wanted to go because I had offered my seat on the Committee on
Commerce to one of those seniors who was standing there, and when the
commotion broke out, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the
chairman, sort of adjourned the committee, and my Republican friends
all left, and then they turned off the lights so everybody was sort of
in the dark.
Then a few minutes later, now they abandoned the committee room, they
turned off the lights, a few minutes later they come back in, and they
are told they will have to sit down and be quite or face arrest.
Most Members were standing up, so I offered my seat to the lady
standing next to me, Barbara, I forget her last name. She was from
Maryland. I went with her. She was quite concerned. She had never been
arrested. They were fingerprinted, photographed, handcuffed, actually
put in a holding room until later that afternoon they were allowed to
bond out before a magistrate. You could not just get an appearance
ticket like a traffic ticket, which is an acceptable thing, but because
this is a bondable offense, they actually had to be held at the
District of Columbia court and bond out later that afternoon.
The police officers again did an excellent job under some tough
circumstances. But I do not believe in, having been a police officer
and having dealt with civil disobedience in government, I do not
believe the arrest was necessary, especially after we abandoned the
hearing room, the markup room, if you will, turned off the lights, come
back, tell them to sit down.
This lady that I assisted did sit down, and then she faced arrest
when she sat
[[Page H 10039]]
down in my chair after I gave her permission.
The part that bothers me, the earlier, a week ago, last Monday, we
started this so-called markup, the National Council for Senior Citizens
came in with mail bags, invited in by the Republicans, dumped 100,000
mailgrams in front of all of us. This gentleman in the group was
allowed to make a speech. There were not supposed to be witnesses, but
he was allowed to make a speech as they were dumping the mail. Then
they grabbed a handful of mailgrams. As what has happened so often in
the past, they were false, fictitious, 75 of them my staff and I went
through, and again, being a police officer, I was rather curious. I
started to go through them. Two were from people who were deceased.
Their family members wrote back and said ``deceased,'' and gave the day
they were deceased. One died in September 1994, but they counted them
as supporting the Republican Medicare plan. Another five were unsigned.
One was addressed to ``contributor.'' Apparently, this individual
contributed to some campaign or something through this organization. So
it was addressed to ``contributor.''
Three of them had written comments on the back, just destroying the
Republican Medicare plan. One of them wrote on there, ``I do not want
to be forced into managed care.'' Another one said, ``I want the
Federal employees' health benefit like you have.'' Another one said,
``Why do you take these pay raises? Give us what you have.'' They were
anything but ringing endorsements of the Republican plan.
I think what is going on here is groups who speak up are subject to
silence, either through not allowing the groups to have their voices
heard or, when they try to be heard, maybe even face arrest. They bring
forth mailgrams which people do not exist, they are unsigned, they are
in complete opposition.
I am very concerned about the image that is being put forth that all
of these people support it. The only ones we hear from are people who
are supportive of the plan, or allegedly supportive of the plan, and
the other thing that bothers me is when we did tort reform, started out
being medical security reform earlier in the committee, there were
actually highly paid lobbyists sitting in the top row of the dais while
the hearings were going on. They approved the amendments being offered
by both sides. These people came in to have their voices heard are not
allowed to sit in the committee room, even in my chair. How could
lobbyists be allowed to sit at the top of the dais and review the
amendments and give their ``yes'' or ``no''?
We need fairness. We need openness, much like the Speaker said. I
would invite him or anyone to have that fairness and openness in all
committees. Let us no longer do any legislation without hearings.
I thank you for allowing me to say a few words this evening.
Ms. DeLAURO. Our time is just about concluded. I want to thank all my
colleagues who came out tonight to engage in this discussion.
The long and the short of it is that this is a serious debate. It is
one that all Americans ought to be able to have their voices heard.
What we have found out is that only some of the voices have been heard.
The voices of seniors, the voices of working families have not been
heard in this process, but the voices of special interests have been
heard.
We need to have a safe and secure Medicare system.
The Democrats have an alternative. They presented that alternative in
committee. It was voted down, and open hearings and open debate on this
issue have been curtailed to only those who support the majority
position or who have a financial interest in what does finally happen.
____________________