[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H88-H89]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CONCLUDING REMARKS REGARDING BALANCED BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis] is recognized for 10 
minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank everyone tonight for 
participating in this. I know it has been going on now for about 2 
hours, or maybe more, and I think it has been very productive and I 
just wanted to thank all of my colleagues.
  I have to be honest and say that all of my colleagues, particularly 
those who have been here debating like this now for on a regular basis 
during special orders for months or maybe it is almost a year now, they 
should understand that from my perspective, and I know it is true for 
my Democratic colleagues that, we have the utmost respect for you 
because you have been willing, as have many of us, to come to the floor 
and debate some of these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought this was very productive and I really 
appreciate the opportunity.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if there is no other agreement this 
evening, I welcome the gentleman's very constructive statement and 
sentiment of gratitude.
  But let me say in candor to my friend from Florida, Mr. Speaker, that 
it is distressing to use partial quotes that are, in fact, the product 
of historical revisionism to try and score debating points.
  Here is the exact quote from the Speaker of the House, as misquoted 
by my friends in the minority. Quote, ``You know, we tell Boris 
Yeltsin, `Get rid of centralized command bureaucracies. Go to the 
marketplace.' OK. What do you think the Health Care Financing 
Administration is? It is a centralized command bureaucracy. It is 
everything we are telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now, we don't 
get rid of it in round one because we don't think it is politically 
smart. We don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. 
But we believe it is going to wither on the vine because we think 
seniors are voluntarily going to leave it.'' Voluntarily. End quote.

  It refers, Mr. Speaker, to the Health Care Financing Administration, 
and not the program known as Medicare. And to my friend from Florida, 
and, yes, I am a bit passionate about this. If free people are to 
debate, if free people are going to reach resolution of problems, this 
points out what I was saying earlier this evening. We have to agree on 
broad parameters to define the debate; not partial quotes; not trying 
to imply that those in the majority would take away these programs; not 
trying to imply as has been the case as has been called by liberal 
publications medigoguery to scare seniors, to claim we want to have our 
children drink unclean water, to get rid of school lunches. We all know 
that to be false.
  I would ask, Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Florida to check his 
facts.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. And, indeed, to retract what has been used here as a 
mantra from the minority.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. If the gentleman will yield, I will be happy to respond.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida will suspend.

                              {time}  2245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. White). The Chair will remind the 
gentleman from Florida that he is here under the rules of the House. 
The Chair has ruled that all Members will suspend for a short period of 
time. The Chair would like to inform the Members that the gentleman 
from Kentucky controls time, and he may yield time to Members as he 
wishes, and only those Members may speak.
  The gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. In a moment I will yield to the gentleman from 
Florida. But I would like to say this is exactly why we cannot have a 
good, honest debate. This is why it is hard to put trust and faith in 
our colleagues when there is rhetoric that is so accusatory.
  As I said, all evening I sat back here and listened to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] say that we disliked Federal employees, we 
disliked Government, we even disliked the military. One gentleman said 
that we were lunatics, that we were extremists, that we are out of 
control. That is not constructive debate. That is getting it down to a 
level where I think it is every destructive.
  I think misquoting our Speaker is another area of being very 
destructive in trying to reach a good debate and a good dialog.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I would be happy, first of all, I have seen a video of 
his statement. This is a letter from the Speaker to the editor of the 
Washington Post which does not have the full context of what was said, 
and it is actually a quote from the transcript of his speech, not a 
transcription of the speech itself. So, I mean, this is somewhat 
questionable in terms of its accuracy.
  As I mentioned to the gentleman from Arizona, I will be happy to 
supply him with a videotape at that point in time.
  If we want to spend the next 5 minutes, the next 6 hours, I will be 
happy to discuss the issue of Medicare with my Republican colleagues 
because I think that is one of the areas of fundamental disagreement. I 
think, and the gentleman from Kentucky, I think sincerely stated that 
he believes that the Republican proposal would save Medicare, and I 
believe that it would destroy Medicare, and that is a fundamental, 180 
degree difference in how we view the specific policies of that, and we 
can go into it, because I serve on the subcommittee that the bill went 
through.
  The trustee report talks about a $90 billion cut. It is a $270 
billion cut, and I would just close very quickly on the point of 
Medicare. It is a $270 billion cut, which, if it really were to save 
Medicare, and this is a fundamental question, why does it not go into 
the Medicare trust fund? I mean, how did that $270 billion number, how 
did it come up?
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, I want to yield to the 
gentleman from California for just a minute. I think he made some 
instructive, gave us some instructive information a little while ago 
about Mr. Panetta and his proposal. I think if you look at Mr. 
Clinton's proposal, you know, I do not think we are that much 
different.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.
  This is important to understand and to be fair about. Both sides 
agree that the unconstrained growth of Medicare will wreck the budget 
of the United States. All sides agree with that. In 1992, our former 
colleague, presently the Budget Director, my colleague from the 
California delegation, proposed a program of $400 billion, that is a 
``b,'' cuts in the rate of growth of Medicare over an 8-year period, 
and that was a part of what I considered at the time a very 
straightforward and honest attempt to save Medicare. It was not to take 
what was rightfully the seniors' and give to others. No. It was a good-
faith effort by our colleague from California, the former colleague 
from California, to save Medicare for those who needed it. He realized 
at that time that Medicare was growing at better than twice the general 
inflation rate.
  If I may, I will be very brief in concluding, the number, therefore, 
of $270 billion in 7 years is much less, and what the trust fund 
trustees recommended by their own admission would require revisiting 
the issue within 5 years. What is being attempted by Mr. Panetta in 
1992 and the Republicans now is a longer term answer, one that will 
guarantee Medicare is there for those who need it many years from now.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield, I want to make a point now 
that the passion has left the voice but the sentiment remains.

[[Page H89]]

  I have the very greatest respect for my friend from Florida. Good 
people can disagree. Again, I simply make this appeal: Let us debate on 
facts and accurate data and let us have difference of opinion in this 
Chamber. But I have to say, again quoting Robert J. Samuelson, when one 
side continually distorts the facts, the purpose is not to debate, it 
is then to destroy.

                          ____________________