[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H10284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    MEDICARE BILL SACRIFICES SENIORS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called 
Medicare Preservation Act, which this House will vote on tomorrow. This 
bill does not preserve Medicare. It preserves the high cost of health 
care and sacrifices our senior citizens.
  Seniors will be asked to pay more out-of-pocket for their health care 
needs if this legislation is enacted. And, what is the justification 
for that? It's not so save Medicare from bankruptcy. Only $90 billion 
of the proposed $270 billion in Medicare cuts is needed to keep the 
program solvent for the next 10 years.
  The seniors are being asked to pay more so that the wealthy in this 
country can get a tax break. That's what this legislation is all about. 
It's not about preserving Medicare. It's about giving the Nation's 
wealthiest people a tax break at the expense of 37 million American 
senior citizens and their families.
  This legislation will impact more than one in every six people in my 
Fourth Congressional District in Alabama who depend on Medicare. This 
bill jeopardizes the quality of their health care, the affordability of 
their health care and their choice of doctors. That's the last thing 
they need or want.
  Most people would agree that changes are needed to ensure the long-
term survival of Medicare. In fact, Congress already has performed 
minor surgery on the Medicare program nine times when changes were 
needed.
  But, this plan calls for major surgery on Medicare when there is no 
emergency. I think Congress needs to wait until after the Presidential 
election and then perform minor surgery to keep Medicare fiscally 
sound. We shouldn't do it when there is no immediate need and we 
certainly shouldn't do it in the middle of presidential politics.
  We must continue to fight waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare 
program. We must tighten enforcement of laws we already have on the 
books. And, any savings ought to go back into the program itself.
  If there is so much concern about the viability of Medicare into the 
21st century, let's use any savings to make the program better. 
Medicare savings certainly should not be used to further reduce taxes 
for the big corporations and the high income people.
  This legislation represents an attempt to balance the budget on the 
backs of senior citizens. The cuts to Medicare account for 30 percent 
of all the proposed spending reductions for the next 7 years. Is this 
fair?
  Is it fair to jeopardize the quality of care available to the elderly 
under Medicare, their choices of doctors and hospitals, and most 
importantly, their ability to pay for health care services? I submit 
that it is not fair.
  We do not need to rush forward with an ill-conceived plan just so we 
can give wealthy people a tax break.
  Any changes in Medicare need to be carefully crafted, well-thought-
out and publicly debated. Congress should examine all the options for 
strengthening the Medicare program and devise a plan to achieve savings 
without penalizing senior citizens.
  Instead, this House will vote tomorrow on a plan to unfairly cut $270 
billion from Medicare to pay for a $245 billion tax cut for the 
wealthy. If this plan passes, seniors will pay more and get less.
  I will vote against unfair cuts in Medicare. I will vote to ensure 
that the Nation's senior citizens have quality, choice and 
affordability when it comes to their medical care.

                          ____________________