[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H10296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PRESERVING MEDICARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my 
friend and colleague the gentlewoman from Florida bemoan what she feels 
to be inadequacies in the new Majority's plan for Medicare reform.
  Let me point out to the gentlewoman and indeed other Members of the 
Minority who may share her concerns that this Majority is listening. As 
a matter of fact, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] will offer 
an amendment tomorrow, I think more than symbolic, I think symptomatic 
of the fact that we address that we have a serious problem here and we 
are looking for legitimate ways to solve it. So be on the lookout.
  Mr. Speaker, I trust the gentlewoman from Florida will join us, as 
will many of her colleagues on the other side, to vote for a 
responsible amendment to add even more fraud and waste abuse 
prevention.
  Let us tell you what the plan is doing right now even without the 
Schiff amendment. Here is what we are doing in the plan to strengthen 
Federal efforts to combat waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare 
program.
  First of all, we are providing monetary incentives for individuals 
who report a violation that results in savings to the program. Second, 
we are doubling sanctions for filing false claims or committing fraud. 
Third, we are authorizing direct spending from Medicare trust funds for 
the OHS Inspector General.
  Again, let us address the fact that we will deal with waste, fraud 
and abuse. Some steps are taken, even more steps will be forthcoming 
tomorrow in the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Schiff].
  It has been interesting to hear some of the debate tonight. While 
good people can from time to time disagree, and ofttimes we do in this 
Chamber, as is our right, being American citizens, I did listen with 
interest to one of the Members compare this with the Japanese attack on 
Pearl Harbor. That has no place in this debate. That has no place 
whatsoever.
  The gentlewoman from Florida used the term mendacity to talk about 
the new majority's plan. Mendacity to those building word power--the 
gentleman from Ohio went and checked the dictionary--and it refers to 
deceit or lies.
  The facts speak for themselves. The Medicare trustees' report issued 
by a bipartisan group said the Medicare trust fund goes broke in 7 
years if we do not move to solve the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, one of my friends from Pennsylvania pointed out that 
when this Medicare bill was passed in 1965, only 7 percent of the then 
minority party, the Republican Party, voted for Medicare. I guess we 
could play historical one-upmanship. I guess we could come in and say, 
which party controlled the Congress when the slaves were freed, which 
party controlled the Congress when women were given the right to vote. 
In both instances, the Republican Party controlled this Chamber.
  But we are not here to play historical one-upmanship. For the 
question is not who created a program, the question is who is willing 
to step forward to protect, preserve and defend a program? The fact is, 
we have to move now deliberately to save this program. Band-Aid 
approaches will not work.
  I do champion the fact that at long last our friends on the other 
side have offered a plan. One newspaper analysis called it ``a deathbed 
conversion.'' After months of saying do not do anything, things are 
going fine, do not change the system, the, suddenly, in the last 
nanosecond of the 11th hour, the new minority steps forward and says, 
``Well, yeah, there has got to be a change, but not too much of a 
change.''

  When the canard that failed to work, that these savings were somehow 
going to tax breaks, when that canard failed to sink in with the 
American people, then they said, ``Well, we have to look for a plan.'' 
It is a plan, regrettably, symptomatic of the politics of the past, for 
what it calls for is a Band-Aid approach.
  Let us get through the next election and maybe, if we are lucky, a 
few years beyond that. Believe me, when it comes to electoral health, I 
think everyone's impulse would be, gee, if we did not have to deal with 
the problem, we would not want to, but the fact is we are elected to 
govern. It is our responsibility to save this program, reasonably, 
rationally. We passed a budget plan. We took care of the tax cuts way 
back in March. We have paid for the tax breaks. Even if the budget were 
balanced tomorrow, we would still have this problem with Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, friends on the other side, we may disagree. But it is 
incumbent on all of us to look to preserve a program for the future, 
and Medicare Plus does that and more. It offers choice. It offers 
freedom to the American people to choose the doctor they want and the 
health care plan they want. That is why I urge my colleagues to join 
with us in a bipartisan fashion to reform Medicare in the years to 
come.

                          ____________________