[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 167 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11370-H11373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] 
is recognized to control the balance of the pending hour as the 
designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, could I just inquire, does that mean that I 
have 5 minutes or that I have how long?
  The SPEAKER pro tempo. The gentleman has a maximum of 22 minutes 
remaining.

[[Page H11371]]

  Mr. PALLONE. I thank the Speaker and I want to thank the gentlewoman 
from New York for yielding me the balance of her time.


                                 Cyprus

  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about the Budget Reconciliation Act 
that we passed today. But before I do that, if I could just spend a 
couple of minutes on a matter that is very important relating to the 
state of Cyprus.
  Mr. Speaker, Earlier today Cyprus's Minister of Foreign Affairs met 
with the International Relations Committee for a briefing on the United 
Nation's and United State's continuing efforts to bring about a 
peaceful resolution to the illegal occupation of Cyprus by Turkey, 
which is now in its 21st year. I am, consequently, here tonight to once 
again lend my support to Mr. Michaelides and all of the Cypriot people 
in their fight to restore independence to their country.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last two decades the international community 
has demanded that the Turks--who today manage their illegal occupation 
with a heavily armed force of over 30,000 troops and 300 tanks--allow 
the Cypriot people to live as a free and independent people in various 
forms over the years. Most recently, in July of last year the United 
Nations Security Council passed Resolution 939, which mandated that any 
settlement of the Cyprus issue must be based on a state of Cyprus with 
a single sovereignty and international personality and a single 
citizenship with its independence and territorial integrity 
safeguarded.
  During this time period the United States has also repeatedly urged 
Turkey to abide by the various United Nation resolutions that have been 
issued. Just a few weeks ago on September 18, the House passed House 
Concurrent Resolution 42, which insists that all parties to the dispute 
regarding Cyprus agree to seek a solution based upon the relevant 
United Nations resolutions. House Concurrent Resolution 42 also urges 
the Turks to build upon a gesture of goodwill made last year by 
Cyprus's President Glafcos Clerides and agree to remove all foreign 
troops from the island.
  For 21 years the entire region surrounding Cyprus has been in a 
volatile state, casting a pall of instability that feeds the specter of 
war. The Secretary General of the United Nation has called Cyprus one 
of the most highly militarized areas in the world. As an international 
champion for both the notion of self-determination and respect for 
international law, the United States has an obligation to make sure 
that when the Foreign Minister leaves our country, he will leave 
knowing that American people fully support the demilitarization of the 
island as part of the larger effort to secure a free and wholly 
independent Cyprus.
  As I said when I spoke in support of House Congressional Resolution 
42 last month, a Turkish refusal to act on this proposal can only be 
read as an unwavering determination by Turkey to ignore the rule of 
law. Indeed, the Secretary General of the United Nations has also noted 
there has been a lack of progress on this issue due essentially to the 
lack of political will on the Turkish Cypriot side. There is, however, 
no shortage of American political will when it comes to assisting 
Cyprus in its struggle for independence. Indeed, as the House's 
decision earlier this year to cut United States aid to Turkey 
demonstrated, there is an ample supply of American political will, and 
the sooner the Turks realize it, the better it will be for them, for 
Cyprus, and for the maintenance of international peace.

                                  1945

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to now turn, if I could, back to the 
legislation that we spent most of our time on today, and that is the 
budget reconciliation bill.
  When I had a few minutes during the debate today to talk about why I 
was opposed to Speaker Gingrich's budget reconciliation plan, I made 
reference to something that I rarely make reference to because I do not 
really think that surveys or polls are necessarily a good indication of 
the way people think. But in the poll that was actually done by the New 
York Times and CBS News that was in the New York Times today, there was 
reflected essentially what I have been hearing from my constituents 
relative to the budget, relative to the purported tax cuts and relative 
to the changes that the Republican leadership is making in both 
Medicare and Medicaid in this budget bill that was passed today.
  Essentially, what the New York Times poll showed was that the public 
in general feels that and Medicare Medicaid are going to be seriously 
diminished for the worse as a result of this Republican bill that 
passed today, also that the tax cuts really are a sham, that they 
essentially go mostly for the rich and that ultimately this Budget 
Reconciliation Act, which is purported to have the purpose of balancing 
the budget, will not accomplish that goal.

  I mention those things because I think that essentially they are 
true. They not only reflect what my constituents say but they reflect 
the reality of the legislation that was passed today.
  If you look at the whole idea of balancing the budget, why would you 
start out with a tax cut? We all know that, in terms of the revenue 
that comes in, it is not sufficient to balance the budget. So if the 
revenue is reduced, and particularly if it is reduced in order to give 
some cuts to mostly wealthy people, then the balancing of the budget is 
going to be more difficult, and that is, in fact, what happens with 
this Republican proposal.
  After 7 years, the national debt will be at least 250, some estimates 
even higher, because of the tax cut, and if you look at the tax cut, it 
provides more generous benefits at higher income levels.
  We know that the legislation actually would raise taxes on those 
earning less than $30,000. So it is not even a tax cut unless you are 
making more than $30,000.
  We are asking the American people to implement this tax cut mostly 
for wealthy people and at the same time that we are raising taxes on 
those below $30,000. And what are we doing it for? Well, I mean, if you 
look at what has been the debate for the last week or so on the House 
floor, you know that what is happening in this bill is that Medicare 
and Medicaid, Medicare being the health care program for the elderly, 
Medicaid being the health care program for low-income people, are both 
being seriously diminished, some would argue ultimately abolished, 
because of this budget bill.
  It is no surprise, really, over and over again today on the House 
floor, and I will repeat it again, we made mention, the Democrats did, 
at least, to the Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, Speaker Gingrich, 
and the statements that they made with regard to the Medicare program. 
We know that from the very beginning, when Medicare was passed back in 
the 1960's, that most of the Republicans in the House of 
Representatives and the Senate actually opposed it. And Senator DOLE, 
who is actually running for president now, was one of the 12 Members of 
Congress who voted again the Medicare bill at that time back in the 
1960's.

  Well, again, this Tuesday, earlier this week, he reiterated in a 
speech before the American Conservative Union, ``I was there fighting 
the fight, voting against Medicare, one out of 12, because we knew it 
would not work in 1965.'' What a message that is being sent here by a 
candidate for President of the United States. He is essentially saying 
Medicare is a terrible program, and certainly it is no surprise that he 
and the Republican leadership are trying to essentially gut Medicare 
today.
  Speaker Gingrich went even further, in a sense. He pointed out that 
maybe we are not abolishing Medicare today, but that is ultimately what 
will happen. He says, ``Now, we don't get rid of it in round 1, because 
we don't think that that is politically smart, and we don't think that 
is the right way to go through a transition period, but we believe it 
is going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily 
going to leave it.''
  So what he is saying, in a sense, is he is saying very 
straightforwardly to, I think it was, to an insurance group, and this 
was actually today, that, ``Well, we may not be totally destroying 
Medicare today, but the changes are so radical that it ultimately will 
disappear,'' and that is exactly what is going to happen under this 
legislation.
  In an effort to try to achieve tax cuts mostly for wealthy people, 
not to balance the budget, we are destroying both Medicare, and I would 
argue also 

[[Page H11372]]

Medicaid. At least now, though, the Republican leaders are saying that 
they never liked Medicare from the beginning and that that really is 
what they are trying to do, get rid of Medicare.
  How do they get rid of Medicare? Well, basically, what they do is 
they squeeze the program in Medicare and Medicaid so much. In other 
words, they take so much money out of it and they set limits on the 
amount of Federal dollars that are actually going to be available over 
the next few years so that it is not possible essentially to operate 
Medicare and Medicaid the way we have known them.
  They also increase taxes on Medicare recipients, on the senior 
citizens who are part of the Medicare program. They doubling the Part B 
premium. Part B is the program that pays for physicians care. It could 
go from something like $40 today to something like $90 over the next 7 
years. They means-test Medicare Part B for the elderly; those who have 
higher incomes will have to pay more.

  But most importantly, what they are doing here, and this is why the 
Speaker says that ultimately people will get out of Medicare and it 
will disappear, is because they make it so difficult to stay in the 
traditional Medicare program where you choose your own doctor and he 
gets reimbursed in what we call a traditional fee-for-service program. 
So little money goes to that traditional system where you choose your 
own doctor and Medicare reimburses it, most of the increased dollars 
that are going to be available or most of the dollars that are going to 
be available go to HMO's or managed care systems. So if you decide you 
do not want to choose your own doctor and you want to go to a HMO, you 
are encouraged to do, because more money is going to be available on 
that side for seniors who go into HMO's or managed care than for 
seniors who stay in the traditional fee-for-service system where they 
choose their own doctors. That is how they get to the situation where 
the Speaker says ultimately Medicare disappears because more and more 
people will not be able to take advantage of the traditional Medicare.
  On Medicaid, the abolition of Medicaid is even more direct under the 
bill. Medicaid right now is an entitlement, which means that if you are 
eligible because of your income, you get the health insurance benefit. 
But instead of providing a continued entitlement, we estimate maybe 35 
million or so Americans who take advantage of Medicaid all of a sudden 
now their future and their ability to get health care is left up to the 
States. The money that the Federal Government provides, which again is 
capped and is limited, goes to the States in a block grant and the 
States decide who they want to cover, how they want to cover, and when 
they want to cover those individuals, and so essentially they could 
decide that they do not want to cover certain people or they could make 
it so difficult for those people to become eligible and so little money 
would be available that essentially they do not have adequate health 
care.
  The worst the examples of this are that, I think, for myself, and 
again where you can see a link between what is happening with Medicare 
and Medicaid, was brought out last week and again today on the House 
floor where we mentioned that right now part B Medicare recipients, 
these are senior citizens who want to have their physician services 
covered, if they are below a certain income, if they are eligible for 
Medicaid, Medicaid now pays for their Part B premium. That guarantee, 
which exists under current law, its abolished.

  There are a lot, we estimate about 7 million, widows in this country 
who are low-income, who right now Medicaid pays for their Part B 
premium. They no longer have a guarantee anymore that Medicaid will pay 
for that.
  Although the Speaker last week indicated that this bill, or either 
the Medicare or this reconciliation bill, would take care of those low-
income seniors, the reality is that they are not covered under this 
legislation that passed today.
  So I think that when the American public, based on that New York 
Times poll or based on what I hear from my constituents say, that they 
are very scared about the future of Medicare and Medicaid because of 
the legislation that was put forward by the Republican leadership and 
passed rather narrowly today almost on a partisan vote, there is reason 
for them to be scared because the Republican leaders, because the 
leaders, whether it is Senator Dole or Speaker Gingrich, basically----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The Chair will caution Members 
not to make personal references to Members of the other body.
  Mr. PALLONE. Oh, you mean the Senate? All right. Thank you, Mr. 
Speaker. I forgot that I am not allowed to make personal references to 
Senate Members.
  What I wanted to say, though, in conclusion, is that it is abundantly 
clear that the Republican leadership in both houses, both the Senate 
and the House of Representatives, essentially are not in favor of 
Medicare, certainly the Medicare that we know of, and so when seniors 
express their concern and say they are fearful that this bill is going 
to abolish or significantly change Medicare or Medicaid for the worse, 
they are certainly accurate in their concerns.
  We have some time, though. We have some time because even though this 
bill passed today, it still has to pass in the Senate. President 
Clinton has said that he intends to veto the legislation, and the vote 
today, which was rather narrow, I think it was about 232 to 200, so 
there were over 200 Members who were opposed to it, I think will send a 
message to the administration that this is not a bill that should be 
supported and that it should be vetoed, and when it is vetoed and it 
comes back to this body, we will join with all of those who have 
expressed concern about it to make sure that we can come up with a 
better bill that does not severely impact Medicare and Medicaid and 
that ultimately achieves the balanced budget that is necessary to 
achieve deficit reduction and get this country back on the road to 
economic prosperity.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. I respect the 
gentleman a lot. I heard the very tail end of his comments.
  Is the gentleman committing to support that compromise that you just 
described if we are able to work one out?
  Mr. PALLONE. Oh, absolutely. You know, I guess I should point out to 
you today that I had a problem with the, some problems with the 
Democratic substitute that was proposed, and so I ultimately did not 
support it. But I think that, in general, what that substitute 
indicated was that it is possible to achieve a balanced budget in 7 
years within the time frame that the bill that was passed today 
proposes and that you can achieve that without having the level of cuts 
in Medicare and Medicaid that this bill seeks.
  One of the ways that the Democratic substitute achieved that was, of 
course, by eliminating the tax cut.
  I think the bottom line is that it is possible to achieve deficit 
reduction to balance the budget within the 7 years. It certainly is a 
worthy goal, but you do not have to do it on the backs of America's 
seniors, which I think is what is happening.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have one simple question. I am curious if 
you would tell me, over the next several years, will the amount of 
money that we are going to spend on Medicare increase?
  Mr. PALLONE. The amount of money that you propose to spend on 
Medicare would increase in absolute dollars, but what I would say to 
you is that the problem is that the rate of increase is insufficient to 
keep a quality health care system. I do not like to get involved in 
this debate over whether it is a cut or an increase. I think I will 
acknowledge that it is an increase in the actual amount of dollars, but 
if you look at the inflation rate and you look at the amount of money 
that is going to be necessary to keep a quality Medicare and Medicaid 
system, I think it is inadequate. That is my point.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Well, I know you do, and those of us on this side really 
believe it is very adequate. For the first 

[[Page H11373]]

time, we are going to give providers of health care the opportunities 
to help bring down that inflation rate, and I think we will see that 
happen.

                          ____________________