[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10303-H10304]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            REPUBLICAN GOALS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, we all feel very strongly about this issue, 
whether you are Republicans or Democrats, and we have our 
disagreements.
  We, as Republicans, have 3 general goals that we intend to pursue 
during the course of this year and next. One is, we want to get our 
financial house in order and balance our Federal budget. Our second is, 
we want to save our trust funds, particularly Medicare. And our third 
is that we want to transform and change our social, corporate and 
farming welfare state into an opportunity society. That is what we want 
to do.
  Addressing primarily the need to save our trust funds, our trust fund 
is going bankrupt in 7 years. It starts to become insolvent next year.
  I know this has happened in the past. When it has happened in the 
past, we have sought to do it by increasing taxes, primarily in 
Medicare part A. It is the payroll tax. The last time around, we 
increased the Social Security tax from 50 percent to 80 percent of 
income, and that money, $29 billion over the next 7 years, is going 
into the Medicare part A trust fund.
  We have four ways to save the trust fund. We can increase taxes. That 
is simply not going to happen. We can affect beneficiaries, we can 
affect providers or we can change this system. We are primarily saving 
this trust fund by affecting the providers and changing the system.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made up a plan that 
does not exist which we then have to defend ourselves against and 
clarify to our constituents.
  Our colleagues on the other side say there are increased co-payments, 
in fact new co-payments. That is simply not true.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we have invented 
new deductibles and increased the existing deductibles. That is simply 
not true.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that we have 
increased premiums. We are going to keep premiums at 31.5 percent. The 
taxpayers will continue to pay 68.5 percent.
  We have made one change to the premium. It is surprising that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not agree this makes 
sense. We think the wealthiest should pay more, so we have an affluence 
test.
  If you are single, you start to pay more for Medicare part B. From 
$75,000 to $100,000 you pay all of Medicare part B premium.
  If you are married, from $125,000 to $150,000, you start to pay more. 
At $150,000, you and your spouse will pay the full Medicare part B 
premium. That is an increase in the premium only to those who are most 
wealthy.
  I have to tell you, I represent one of the wealthiest parts of the 
entire country. I have gone to my constituents and said, if you have 
this kind of income I think you should be paying an increase in the 
premium.
  But it is only the wealthy. So when I hear my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle talk about how we want to have tax cuts for the 
wealthy, somehow they do not want to have the 

[[Page H 10304]]
wealthy paying more for Medicare part B. I think they should.
  We are not affecting beneficiaries. We are changing the system. How 
are we changing the system? We are allowing Medicare Plus, we are 
allowing people to stay in Medicare as they want it now, that typical 
program, or they can go into any other host of other new programs. They 
can go into the private sector.

  And they can choose to if they want to, but if they do not want to, 
if they are silent, they do not ask to go into the private sector. They 
simply remain on Medicare as it exists today, a 1960's system, 
inefficient, you can choose your own doctor, you can stay there, or you 
can be attracted over into the private sector and possibly have your 
premiums reduced, your co-payments reduced, your deductibles reduced 
and possibly eye care, dental care or prescription drugs. All of those 
may attract you to leave what you have now. But you can stay. But if 
you want to pay less, you can get into the private system.
  I have heard the reference of saving $270 billion. On Medicare in the 
next 7 years, we are going to spend $1.6 trillion, as opposed to the 
last 7 years where we spent $900 billion. We are going to spend over 
$600 billion more in the next 7 years than we spent in the last 7 
years. That is going to doctors. It is going to hospitals. It is going 
to, candidly, those who run the systems. It will go to a whole host of 
different people.
  We are going to put 54 percent more into the system. We are going to 
have the individual payment per beneficiary go from $4,800 to $6,700. 
Only when you spend more and only in Washington when you spend more do 
people call it a cut. It is not a cut. It is a significant increase.
  I just make this last point. As it relates to Medicaid, our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have pointed we need to deal 
with spousal impoverishment, and we are in our bill. The gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] has put forward an amendment with me that deals 
with the criminal statutes. We are going to make it a Federal offense. 
It is in the rule, a self-enacting rule, and the bill of the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] and my amendment will pass, if the rule 
passes, that will make health care fraud a criminal Federal offense.

                          ____________________