[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 180 (Tuesday, November 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H12326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                LET US TALK ABOUT MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, earlier today in this Chamber we 
debated a bill that was sponsored by the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. 
Vucanovich] and also the gentleman from southern California [Mr. 
Waxman]. It was a bill to make minor changes in the law regulating 
pacemaker safety to make sure that over the years that Congress has 
been very involved in that issue, to make sure that Medicare does not 
overpay for defective pacemakers, that pacemakers that are implanted in 
people are indeed safe. It was a simple bill, a noncontroversial bill, 
a bill that had bipartisan support, and a bill ultimately that passed 
by voice vote or passed pretty much unanimously.
  I have been a Member of this body for 3 years representing a district 
in northeast Ohio, and something happened during that debate that 
troubled me as we discussed this bill. Some of us wanted to talk about 
Medicare as a whole, about the Gingrich $270 billion cut Medicare plan, 
about Medicaid and all that this pacemaker issue included in other 
issues that Medicare--that revolve around Medicare, and clearly when 
any of us goes home and goes to our district, it is pretty obvious that 
Medicare is on the minds not just of people that are Medicare 
beneficiaries, of actual beneficiaries today, but of their children. It 
is on the mind, Medicaid is on the mind, of people that have to place 
their parents or grandparents in nursing homes, Medicaid is on the 
minds of people that--whose families might have Alzheimer's. It is 
Medicaid and Medicare issues that people want to hear about, and want 
to talk about, and want to see Congress debate, and unfortunately 
today, Mr. Speaker, as a couple of us wanted to talk about Medicare, 
especially specifically, and also Medicaid, there were Members of the 
majority party that--who supported the Gingrich plan that did not even 
want us to discuss it, that continue to say, ``You're out of order,'' 
and try to get--try to stop us from discussing Medicare as a whole.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason we wanted to discuss Medicare is that in this 
Chamber during the day when we are actually debating legislation, not 
in the evening in these special orders when few Members sit in this 
Chamber, but during the day; we only had 1 hour of general debate on 
the whole Medicare bill, and even worse perhaps, in committee. I sit on 
the Committee on Commerce, others that sit on the Committee on Ways and 
Means, and saw Medicare and Medicaid pass through those two committees 
with only one hearing in the Committee on Ways and Means and no 
hearings in the Committee on Commerce. We passed legislation changing a 
$200 billion or a $180 billion Medicare bill program that is $180 
billion a year spent on Medicare, about $80 billion a year spent on 
Medicaid; we changed those two programs in a big, big way, markedly, 
with no real committee hearings.
  And what bothered me is today we try to talk about nursing home 
standards, how this Congress wants to roll back all Federal nursing 
home standards that have made a big difference in dealing with the 
problems of oversedation in nursing homes, made a big difference with 
the problems of neglect in nursing homes, made a big difference with 
the problems that nursing home patients, the most defenseless people 
probably in society have faced in the Federal Government involvement 10 
years ago. These nursing home standards that this Congress passed, 
signed by President Reagan at that time, made a big difference in these 
people's lives in the twilight of their years, yet this Congress and 
the Gingrich plan repealed all of those nursing home standards.
  We also wanted to talk about the premium increases. Under the 
Gingrich plan, $270 billion in Medicare cuts and $180 billion in 
Medicaid cuts over the next 7 years will mean doubling of premiums from 
$46 a month up to almost $100, will mean an increase in deductibles 
from now $100 perhaps up to $150, to $200, maybe $250, and it will mean 
an increase in co-pays in some versions of this bill which will be 
voted on for a second time in the next month.
  They also did not try to--tried to call us out of order when they 
talked about how Medicaid has written out the disabled, and again some 
of the most vulnerable people in society, and they also--we wanted to 
talk about the spousal protection where if an elderly man's wife ends 
up in a nursing home, and paid for by Medicaid, that the husband can 
still live in his modest home without spending, selling the home, and 
having all the money go to the nursing home.
  All of those kinds of issues were so important, and perhaps what they 
objected to the most was when I quoted Speaker Gingrich when he said 
the response to criticisms about this Medicare bill, about the $270 
billion in cuts and when he obviously wanted to go much further in 
Medicare. He made a statement to a bunch of insurance executives, most 
of whom, is not all of whom, will benefit mightily monetarily, their 
companies and they individually, from this $270 billion Medicare cut 
bill. Speaker Gingrich said, ``Now we don't want to get rid of Medicare 
in round 1 because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't 
think it's the right way to go, but we believe that Medicare is going 
to wither on the vine.''
  Two hundred seventy billion dollars in cuts for a tax break of $250 
billion for the wealthiest people in society with the hope that 
Medicare is going to wither on the vine. Mr. Speaker, it is simply not 
right.

                          ____________________