[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H172-H178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




REPUBLICANS' GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN AFFECTS THE COUNTRY'S MOST VULNERABLE 
                                CITIZENS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Metcalf). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, before my colleagues and I get started this 
evening, I would just like to make one comment about the commentary of 
the prior speaker having to do with the earned income tax credit, a 
program that, I might add, was started by President Ronald Reagan. And 
to refresh people's memories, he was a Republican President of the 
United States. President Reagan started the program to help to keep 
working families off of welfare.
  I might also remind my colleagues of the words of another Republican, 
Mr. Jack Kemp, and these were his words in October of 1995, and again I 
quote. ``I hope you guys'', making reference to the Republicans, ``do 
not go too far on removing the EITC, because that is a tax increase on 
low-income workers and the poor, which is unconscionable at this 
time.''
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, would my friend yield for 30 seconds?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to finish my commentary and then get 
into our program, so I want to finish what I am going to say here.
  I might also say that it is interesting that in the tax break package 
that is being offered by the Republican majority in this House that 
there was another Ronald Reagan program called the alternate minimum 
tax. For those who do not know what the alternate minimum tax is, this 
is a tax that the richest corporations in the United States pay.
  President Reagan, with very good thought and vision, put this into 
practice, because oftentimes the richest corporations in this country, 
when they took all of their deductions, would find that they had a zero 
tax obligation. He thought, as did others, that it would be unfair to 
have that occur, that the richest corporations in the country would not 
be paying some portion or a fair share of taxes the way that ordinary 
Americans pay their taxes. So he put in a 20 percent rate, and the 
Congress approved of a 20 percent rate on the richest corporations in 
the country.
  Into that tax package that the Republicans are proposing, the $245 
billion tax break package, the alternate minimum tax is repealed, 
repealed, which means that, once again, if this passes and is law, that 
the richest corporations in the United States will have a zero tax 
obligation. It is a $17 billion windfall to the richest corporations.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my Republican colleagues about that, 
and I also want to remind the listening public that what Mr. Kemp says, 
that tampering with the earned income tax credit, which the Republican 
package does in cutting the earned income tax credit, is an increase on 
taxes for working families at the same time as my Republican colleagues 
are decreasing taxes for the richest corporations in this Nation.
  No wonder the public said to the President of the United States, 60 
percent of the public said veto Mr. Gingrich's budget bill and do not 
balance the budget on the backs of seniors and Medicare and Medicaid, 
and on students and education, and on working families with being 
unfair to them in terms of taxes.
  My colleagues are here tonight so that we may have an opportunity to 
talk about something that is on everyone's minds, everyone's lips, and 
it is in all of the news. And what we have tried to do is to organize a 
special order tonight on behalf of the millions of senior citizens in 
this country and their families who are sitting at their kitchen tables 
tonight struggling to cope with the impact of the Government shutdown. 
Day No. 20.

  Our seniors, including many of this Nation's veterans, live on fixed 
incomes. They do not have money to fall back on when their benefits are 
cut off. Now, these vulnerable citizens have become pawns in what is a 
very, very cynical political game being played by House Republicans, 
who are refusing to open the Federal Government, despite what they tell 
the public. They had the opportunity to open the Federal Government 12 
times, the latest was yesterday.
  Let us be clear about what is happening here. The President of the 
United States, the Democrats, responsible Republicans all agree that it 
is time to end the Government shutdown and it is time for Speaker 
Gingrich and the right wing extremists in the House to stop holding 
America's seniors hostage to their political games. It is power 
politics at its worst, is what we are watching.
  Bob Dole, and I don't have the quote up here, but I will get it, Bob 
Dole, the Republican majority leader of the other body, wants to reopen 
the Government. He said enough is enough, and he is right. He is 
absolutely right. He said that this has gone about as far as it can go. 
We need now to put people back to work.
  I don't want to misquote the majority leader. This is what he says. 
``I don't see any sense in what we have been doing. I would hope that 
we would have quick action in the House. People have been gone from 
their jobs long enough. Enough is enough.''

                              {time}  2115

  And that quote was on January 2, 1996.
  Now, how are seniors affected by the shutdown of the Federal 
Government? That is what my colleagues and I are here to talk about 
tonight. In my own district, the Third District of Connecticut, the 
Veterans Hospital in West Haven Connecticut cannot now legally pay for 
anything. They must depend on vendors to continue to provide, without 
payment, food, hearing aids, glasses, medical supplies, ambulance 
services and all of the lifesaving treatments provided our Nation's 
veterans.
  Mr. Vincent Ng, the director of VA Hospitals in Connecticut, said 
``We will do whatever is necessary to care for our patients. We hope 
our contractors will support the needs of the medical centers during 
this crisis situation so that we will be able to maintain our full 
standard of patient care.''
  Our Nation's veterans should not be forced into paying for the 
failings of this Congress. Men and women who have put their lives on 
the line for this Congress and for this country deserve better than 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, it is just not the veterans who are being hurt, but 
those who care for them as well. One VA employee called my office today 
to explain that he had received a paycheck of one week's pay and two 
weeks' worth of deductions. He called because he does not have any 
money for food. We made a reference for him and we directed him to the 
nearest food bank, to the nearest food pantry.
  He is not alone. The plight of the VA employees in my district 
prompted Mayor Richard Borer of West Haven, CT, to make a public plea 
for donations to the local food shelters to help feed workers who are 
now not being paid. The people who care for our veterans deserve 
better.
  The crisis facing our elderly veterans extends to every single State 
in this 

[[Page H173]]
Nation. If the Government shutdown continues, veterans benefits may run 
out. New claims are not being paid for VA pensions, rehabilitation 
counseling, education, and home loans.
  Programs that provide food to the elderly are also in jeopardy if the 
Government shutdown continues. Funding for the Meals on Wheels Program 
has evaporated. To understand how many seniors rely on this service, 
let me again give an example of one of the Meals on Wheels providers in 
my district.
  The New Haven Community Action Agency provides meals to 2,000 senior 
citizens every single day. Some 600,000 elderly Americans face the loss 
of Meals on Wheels, transportation, and personal care. What are we 
about in this Nation? What are these people doing to seniors and to 
veterans in this country?
  The Meals on Wheels program in my State has suffered a 40 percent cut 
in funding because of the shutdown. It is unclear how much longer we 
will be able to carry the Federal Government's responsibilities to feed 
our elderly.
  In addition, Federal funds to States for Medicaid have been severely 
limited. On December 27, States received only 40 percent of the 
estimated quarterly payment for Medicaid. Without further action, the 
Federal match for Medicaid and its 36 million beneficiaries of the 
Medicaid program, two-thirds are elderly and the disabled.
  While the House Republican leadership refuses to reopen the 
Government, the Republican leadership in this body continue to take 
their paychecks. These same Republican leaders promised last year that 
they were going to make this Congress live under the same rules as 
everybody else, but today while seniors worry about the fate of elderly 
feeding programs, while veterans' health services are jeopardized, 
while seniors are suffering, the congressional paychecks just keep on 
coming to the leaders, to Mr. Gingrich.
  Mr. Speaker, I am returning my congressional pay back to the U.S. 
Treasury and will continue to do so until the Government is reopened.
  If Speaker Gingrich and the right wing extremists in the House of 
Representatives who are keeping this Government closed were forced to 
put their paychecks on the line, I think the crisis would be over in a 
heartbeat.
  The President, Democrats, and Republicans in the U.S. Senate all want 
to reopen the Government and stop inflicting pain on our seniors and 
veterans. But a small band of extremists in this body are holding 
America hostage. Yesterday, when the Democrats voted to try to reopen 
the Government, only 2 Republicans were brave enough to join us. Only 
2.
  Democrats need 20 good Republicans. Twenty. Mr. Speaker, 197 
Democrats are prepared to have voted to reopen this Government. We need 
20 Republican votes. So, I am pleading with my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle to have the courage, have the courage to do the right 
thing, to show their allegiance to the American people instead of their 
allegiance to Newt Gingrich. Join us to reopen the Government and 
restore the services that the taxpayers have paid for and are paying 
for every single day that this Government is shut down. We only need 20 
good Republicans, 20 patriots.

  The 20-day Government shutdown is affecting more and more Americans. 
Seniors have been hit extremely hard, and remember, most older 
Americans live on extremely limited monthly budgets and are not able to 
compensate for the loss of vital Federal benefits.
  Our Nation's veterans and other senior citizens should not be asked 
to pay the price of the Gingrich Government shutdown.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield time to my colleagues who have joined me on 
the floor tonight so we can engage in a dialog and discussion on this 
issue. I yield to my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Frank Pallone, who 
has been a real warrior in this effort to reopen our Government and 
real friend of America's senior citizens.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] for yielding to me tonight, and also to 
praise her for the fact that she is focusing tonight on how the 
shutdown particularly affects senior citizens and veterans.
  I think it is important that we zero in on certain groups, because I 
think that is what the Republican Majority has done. Last night we 
talked a great deal about the EPA and environment and health and safety 
measures that are not being taken during the shutdown because the 
Republican majority effectively zeroed in on environmental protection 
and quality of life issues and has taken it upon themselves not only to 
shut down EPA and other such agencies, but also to cut back on funding 
and cripple these agencies in the future.
  I think we are seeing the same thing happen with senior citizens. 
This whole debate over the budget is largely a function of Medicare and 
Medicaid. The fact that Democrats are opposed to the idea of giving 
huge tax breaks to wealthy Americans and taking money away from 
Medicare and Medicaid in order to fund those tax breaks.
  Well, senior citizens are mostly impacted by cuts in Medicare as well 
as Medicaid, and I think it is no surprise, therefore, that a lot of 
the impact of this shutdown is falling squarely on senior citizens and 
also on veterans.

  I just wanted, if I could, to spend a couple of minutes talking about 
what is happening in my home State of New Jersey. New Jersey right now 
is facing a financial crisis because of the Federal Government 
shutdown. It is particularly impacting senior citizens.
  In order to pay for human services in New Jersey, the State borrowed 
yesterday $250 million to pay for Social Security services for the poor 
and elderly. The interest rates on these loans will be picked up by New 
Jersey taxpayers, while these same taxpayers watch services 
deteriorate.
  Mr. Speaker, this is costing us money. Our constituents are seeing 
less and less services and they are going to have to pay more for it. 
If we look at the services provided to the elderly under the Older 
Americans Act, they are very much threatened right now in the State of 
New Jersey. In Middlesex County in my district, over 11,000 seniors 
directly benefit from the Older American Act programs, including Meals 
on Wheels.
  The State is seeking to provide my county Offices on Aging with just 
enough money to keep the Meals on Wheels and the senior nutrition 
programs going for the rest of this month, but all the other programs 
funded under the Older Americans Act are threatened. This includes home 
health care, visiting nurses, critical care management, friendly 
visits, information referral services, legal services. There is no 
money available for these programs, many of which are essential for 
seniors' well-being and avoiding institutionalization.
  I know that the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] has always 
stressed, as I have, preventive care. We do not have any prevention 
anymore during the shutdown. Another example is the loss of money for 
emergency housing assistance for seniors who cannot pay the rent.
  We know that nationwide 10,000 Social Security workers have been laid 
off, putting a strain on the entire operation during what is the 
busiest month of the year, the beginning of the year. And it has been 
impossible for seniors to get through to the 800 number in the 
northeast region, and my office got a lot of calls complaining about 
this. Apparently, because of the lapse of the tax on airline tickets, 
the airline 800 numbers have been swamped with calls and, therefore, 
that blocks the use of the Social Security 800 number. It sounds like a 
minor impact, but it is very important.

  Mr. Speaker, I called the Small Business Administration in New York-
New Jersey and found it shut down completely and this affects the 
statewide SCORE program, in which retired businessmen provide 
assistance to small businesses and other businesses which help 
accommodate the elderly.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk briefly about veterans. Every work day 
that Congress fails to provide funding to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 500 widows and other beneficiaries will not be paid the 
proceeds of veterans life insurance policies. There is no staff 
available to handle the claims because of the furloughs. Think about 
it. How would my colleagues like it if their spouse was unable to 
collect their life insurance benefits if they were to die? For this 
reason alone, I think the Republicans should support the continuing 
resolution.

[[Page H174]]

  As my colleague from Connecticut mentioned, employees of veterans 
hospitals are being forced to work without pay. I commend them for 
their dedication, but these employees are going to lose their 
motivation to work for the VA at some point. We are talking about 
veterans who dedicated their lives to this country. I just think it is 
totally outrageous.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut mentioned Medicare and Medicaid. It 
is reported in today's Star Ledger, which is our largest circulation 
daily in New Jersey, that in the State Human Services Department, the 
Secretary has said that the department faces the greatest potential for 
disruption at this point. Each day the Federal dispute goes on, the 
likelihood increases that a scheduled $130 million payment for Medicaid 
is going to be delayed and, of course, Medicaid, the majority of it, is 
used for medical care or nursing home care for senior citizens.
  Let us look at the headlines of some of the papers about how our 
State, New Jersey, is really feeling the impact of this, and again the 
major impact or a significant part of the impact is on senior citizens 
and veterans. I just think it is so unfair. So many of us started this 
whole budget debate, if you will, and came to the floor months ago 
because we were concerned about the impact of these Republican cuts on 
Medicaid and Medicare, and now we are seeing the same senior citizens 
immediately affected by this Government shutdown.
  I wanted to say one thing, and I will yield back, which is that I am 
somewhat encouraged by the fact that the gentlewoman mentioned that we 
only need 20 Republicans in order to get this continuing resolution 
passed and the Government open again. I heard that yesterday in the 
Republican conference there were 54 Republicans who wanted to vote for 
that. Really, the blame now is entirely on the Republican House 
leadership, on Speaker Gingrich and the others, because they are afraid 
to bring this up because they know if they bring up the continuing 
resolution, we will get enough Republican votes to pass this with all 
the Democrats. Hopefully reason will prevail and if we keep this up, as 
the gentlewoman has so well, we are going to see some light over the 
next few days.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I 
think that it is largely because it is what Bob Dole said: ``Enough is 
enough.'' And it was a bipartisan consensus in the Senate to bring 
people back to work, let them earn their pay, and let us then sort out 
what budget differences that we have.

                              {time}  2130

  I also just want to mention one point because I am so delighted that 
you brought it up before I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, that 
it is this whole notion of focusing on balanced budget is just 
political posturing, because the issue has been what it always has 
been, what are our priorities in this budget. We all want to see our 
fiscal house be put in order.
  A $245 billion tax break for the wealthiest Americans is not putting 
our fiscal house in order, especially at the expense of Medicare, 
Medicaid, education, and the environment.
  Our Republican colleagues would like to continue to mask what they 
are doing, and I thank the gentleman for bringing that issue up again.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], who has 
represented Federal employees in the very, very best manner possible.
  Mr. FROST. If the gentlewoman will yield for just a moment, I have 
just been informed, for members of the Committee on Rules who may be 
watching this debate, that the Committee on Rules will meet at 10 
o'clock this evening, in 30 minutes, to consider a resolution on this 
particular matter of the Government shutdown. We do not know all the 
details, but that there will be a Committee on Rules meeting at 10, and 
I hope that something constructive will come from that.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. I would encourage members of the 
Committee on Rules to find their way to the Committee on Rules by 10 
o'clock.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding to 
me, but more importantly for her continuing commitment to educate not 
just her constituents but this great Nation on what issues are at stake 
here, why we have come to this crisis.
  It is a contrived crisis in terms of the Government shutdown. But the 
American people need to understand why the President cannot in good 
conscience accept the Republican 7-year plan, as the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut and the gentleman from New Jersey have continually 
emphasized he cannot. I do not think any President could in good 
conscience, knowing that it only takes $90 billion to make the Medicare 
Program solvent, cut the Medicare Program by $270 billion so that you 
can take $180 billion and pay it out in tax cut for the most affluent 
Americans.
  In my State of Virginia, only 3.7 percent of the entire population of 
the State of Virginia would get the majority of those tax breaks. Now, 
they may all live in my district, but the point is, even so, it is 
wrong, and we do not want him to accept such a substantial cut in a 
high-priority national program in order to make the kinds of tax cuts 
that put us in this situation in the first place.
  If it were not for those tax cuts in 1981, we would be in a surplus 
today, and, in fact, we probably would not even have a Federal debt. It 
is the interest we are paying on the debt incurred during the Reagan 
administration alone, just that debt, the interest on that debt is 
greater than the deficit today, which means if it were not for the debt 
incurred primarily because of those 1981 tax cuts, we would have a 
surplus budget today.
  So let us understand where this problem originated, and here we are, 
deja vu. We are going to do the same thing all over again. We are going 
to start out with tax cuts that are politically popular, and then, now, 
the Republicans are promising, ``Well, we are not going to do that, 
just tax cuts. We are going to cut your programs.'' Wait and see.
  The President cannot in good conscience accept such a dramatic cut in 
a program like Medicare when two-thirds of the cut goes into tax cuts. 
But it is not just dollars and cents, as the gentlewoman and gentleman 
have been emphasizing night after night. We know that about 60 percent 
of the Medicare population only cost the system about $500 a year. 
Ninety percent of Medicare beneficiaries cost the Medicare Program less 
than $1,300 a year.
  The Republican plan, and they are absolutely right, it does increase 
each year, it starts by giving vouchers of about $4,800 a year and goes 
up to about $6,800. But think of this: If 90 percent of your population 
is only going to cost about $1,300 and you are getting a voucher of 
$4,800, there is a tremendous profit to be made. How? By avoiding the 
10 percent who cost the system $29,000 a year.
  And the reason the President cannot accept this Medicare plan is not 
just the cuts that go into tax breaks but it restructures the program. 
It tears down a fundamental concept, what we think is an American 
principle. It is called community rating. That is the technical term. 
But what it says is we are all in this together. Those 10 percent of 
the people that cost the system $29,000 in a year, they could be any of 
our parents or grandparents. We do not know who it is going to be. But 
if somebody has to have that help to stay alive, has to have that 
expensive treatment, the American people feel that it is the right 
thing to meet that need. That is community rating, and if somebody 
needs it, then the money will be there. That is what insurance is 
supposed to be all about.

  But when you turn it over, when you privatize it, when you turn it 
over to managed care, what it will do is to set all of these various 
insurance companies who have as their motive profit, the Medicare 
program costs about 1.2 percent in administrative costs, and managed 
care companies, and many of them are wonderful, but their average 
profit was about 20 percent last year. Twenty percent of the premium 
goes into profit. They are going to go out, their bottom line being 
profit, and they are going to target this 90 percent of the Medicare 
program that will not cost them much to provide care for, and they are 
going to make a tremendous profit.
  In fact, in the 15 States where we did test cases, very interesting, 
it cost the Medicare program more money because by managed care 
companies going in, 

[[Page H175]]
targeting this population, making it very difficult for anybody that is 
really sick or infirm to go in to many of the managed care plans, they 
stay in fee-for-service. And they wind up segmenting the population, 
and that 10 percent winds up being really dependent upon public 
hospitals at a much greater expense. That is what is going to happen 
under this program.
  That 10 percent is not going to get the care they need. In fact, they 
are going to pay astronomical costs eventually in out-of-pocket 
expenses for care that they desperately need. That is what it is all 
about.
  The medical savings accounts that we hear so much about, it is touted 
so much, and, of course, just follow the money trail. We know why it 
got into the bill in the first place: because of all the substantial 
donations to GOPAC and so on.
  But the point is that last year the principal insurance company that 
offers medical savings accounts, of the insurance premiums that they 
received, 40 percent went for profit. Only 60 percent of the premiums 
they received went for medical care. So now we want to turn this over 
to a national program where 40 percent of the premiums the American 
people pay are going to go into corporate profit instead of medical 
care? No. We cannot allow it to be done. And that is what is happening. 
That is why the President cannot accept it.
  Just quickly on Medicaid, that may be a worse situation. In Medicaid, 
the Governor of Virginia was one of the Governors, Republican 
Governors, who wrote a letter asking that onerous provisions be removed 
from the Medicaid program. What were the onerous provisions? Spousal 
impoverishment protection and the regulations that were passed during 
the Reagan administration. The spousal impoverishment provision, which 
says that if your spouse is in a nursing home, then the State cannot go 
and seize your home and your automobile and all of your assets, that 
has been weakened by this bill.
  So, now, every spouse that has a spouse in a nursing home is 
threatened with not being able to hold on to their home and their 
assets.
  What President Reagan did was to protect them up to at least $14,000 
of assets. Gone.
  And the other thing that the Republican Governors are so insistent 
about they do not want the regulations that were put in in 1987 in the 
light of unbelievable abuses in nursing homes where people were living 
in squalor, where they were strapped down, where they were drugged so 
they could not even talk, so that you would not have to provide for 
them, because when you do provide for them, when you do not drug them, 
when you do not strap them down in bed, then it requires a lot more 
personnel. Personnel are expensive.
  If the States are on their own, they are going to be able to fire 
these personnel and go back to the old days of treating people without 
dignity, without respect, in inhumane ways. That is what we are afraid 
of. That is why we do not want the President to accept what we call 
structural changes. They are profound changes. They are threats to the 
entire concept, all the values that we have established throughout our 
generation, for the last 50 years, based upon the principle that 
everyone deserves respect, dignity, everybody has an opportunity to 
live out their lives with some concern, some care, and their family, 
even if they cannot afford it, to be able to be sure that their loved 
one is not going to be abused. That is what we are talking about: 
abused, exploited, and treated without human dignity. We cannot allow 
this country to go back to the inhumane conditions that gave rise to 
these protections. That would be eviscerated in this bill. It is wrong. 
The President cannot in good conscience accept it.

  Those are some of the reasons why we are in the situation we are in, 
and they are reasons why the President cannot yield. What we have to do 
is go back to the way we have always done things in the past, get a 
continuing resolution, an interim spending bill, let the Government 
function, try to work things out. Then, if it comes to it, let next 
November be a national referendum on such profound issues.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for giving me the 
opportunity to spend some time with you.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. Thank you for going through those 
various programs.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to add something, because I am so glad 
that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] brought up how profound 
the differences are in some of these budget issues, particularly 
Medicare and Medicaid.
  I was very aggravated, if you will, last night when I listened to 
some of our Republican colleagues suggest that, oh, there is nothing 
really to this, you know, the President can just sit down and split the 
difference on some of the numbers in terms of Medicare and Medicaid 
with the Republicans and everything will be fine, and he can sign the 
bill and all the Government employees can go back to work.
  These are profound differences. Just briefly, on the Medicaid issue, 
which I consider really probably the most important issue, they are 
talking, the Republican leadership, essentially, with this budget, is 
talking about destroying Medicaid as we know it. The whole basis of 
Medicaid is that if you are below a certain income and need health 
insurance, that you are guaranteed the health insurance and that you 
are guaranteed a certain package of health insurance that provides for 
health care, that is necessary for a lot of low-income people.
  Again, most of the money goes to pay for senior citizens, and what 
they are doing here is just saying we are going to block grant, we are 
going to cut the amount of money available, we are going to send it to 
the States, and we are going to let the State decide whether or not 
they want to cover certain people and what kind of benefits they want 
to give them.
  Now, we know that is going to mean a lot of seniors who are now in 
nursing homes are not going to be eligible for nursing home care paid 
for through Medicaid. We know a lot of disabled people are probably not 
going to be on the eligibility list.
  Of course, all the other things built into the Federal program that 
you mentioned, the nursing home standards, the fact that they cannot go 
after certain spousal assets or go after the assets of children, all of 
these things are thrown by the wayside. So we are talking about the end 
of Medicaid as we know it, and unless there is some sort of Federal 
guarantee that the people who now receive Medicaid would continue to 
receive it, the President cannot possibly agree to this.
  So it is not just a question of splitting the numbers. You know, the 
Republicans, I think are talking about cutting $185 billion in 
Medicaid, and the President has said, well, perhaps the program can be 
cut by $35 billion or so. It is not just a question of splitting the 
numbers. This is a profound difference.
  The Republicans are trying to basically eliminate the Medicaid 
Program as we know it. The same is true for Medicare.
  Mr. MORAN. If the gentlewoman would yield for just a moment for a 
response, it is also true that there will no longer be any guarantee 
that everyone be treated at least equally within the State. The 
Governor can discriminate geographically, demographically, any way they 
want. It really does come down to the concept of community where we all 
care about our neighbors versus the concept of survival of the fittest.

                              {time}  2145

  This debate is instructive, important, and we ought to have it. Some 
people would say ``Look, if I am young and healthy, I should not have 
to support old and sick people. That is not my responsibility. I am on 
my own.''
  That is a fair, legitimate point of view. And people in this country 
ought to make that determination, what this country is all about.
  Others would say if we can afford to as a Government, then everyone 
has the right to live in some manner of dignity, with some basic 
minimal standards of respect and care, because we do not know when we 
are going to become impoverished, become sick, become dependent upon 
others.
  Now, the American people ought to make these kinds of choices between 
the concept of community and the concept of survival of the fittest. 
But it ought to be done in a knowledgeable 

[[Page H176]]
way, it ought to be a national referendum. That election is 1994, where 
you had less than 40 percent of the people vote, certainly was not a 
mandate to eviscerate, to cast aside the concept of community that has 
guided this country and made it the greatest country in the world at 
the greatest time ever to live in the United States of America. There 
was no mandate given to do that.
  Now, if the American people want to give that kind of a mandate next 
November, they will have an opportunity to decide. But that is how this 
ought to be decided, as a national referendum, not by holding Federal 
employees hostage and by these kinds of tactics of terrorism that we 
are seeing played out on the floor of this House day after day.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would just say it is a question of values, where are 
our American values. I think the public has a very clear idea of where 
those values are in looking at protecting Medicare and Medicaid, the 
education for our young people, our environment, and making sure that 
working families can see their way in this country. That is what it is 
about, values.
  I would like to yield to my colleague, the minority whip, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank my colleague for yielding and taking this time 
this evening and for engaging in this debate and this dialogue.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to go back, if I can, to a theme that we had been 
talking about and are still talking about that sometimes tends to get 
lost in this debate we are now engaged in with respect to the 
Government, and that is the whole question of what we are fighting for 
in this budget debate. We have talked about that this evening. But I 
want to reemphasize to people the Medicare piece, and why we feel so 
strongly about Medicare.

  The Department of Labor this year did an analysis of what the income 
levels of our seniors were in this country. They found that 60 percent, 
6-0, 60 percent of our seniors had incomes of $10,000 a year or less. 
That is combined Social Security and retirement income, $10,000 a year 
or less.
  Now, what we have witnessed this year with these Medicare dismantling 
proposals by our colleagues, our Republican colleagues, is an 
additional cost out-of-pocket for these people who make $10,000 a year 
or less of probably close to $500.
  When you add on top of that what the insurance industry plans to 
charge these people with respect to their Medigap insurance, you are 
talking another $300 to $500. We are talking about 10 percent of their 
income.
  That is way we feel so strongly about this, because the proportion of 
shared burden here is not falling the way we think a community ought to 
deal with a question of this magnitude.
  We are, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] said, a country 
that has a sense of community, and this is really in many ways a 
question of is it the survival of the fittest, or are we going to act 
to take care of each other, to take care of our fathers and 
grandmothers and grandfathers and mothers who went before us. The folks 
now who are seniors are folks who fought, they went through the 
Depression, they saved this country and the western world, 
civilization, for democracy and freedom and justice. And here they are; 
they struggled all their lives, and these folks get to the point where 
they want to take a deep breath and try to enjoy the last remaining 
years, and we are sticking them, they are sticking them, excuse me, 
with a $1,000 bill basically.
  That is what this is about in many ways. I could make the same case 
on Medicaid. Why are we so firm in our position with respect to 
Medicaid? Because 25 percent of the kids in this country get their 
health insurance through Medicaid. It is because so many of our seniors 
depend upon it for long-term care. It is because our disabled depend 
upon it.

  Heaven knows, each one of us, someone in our family could be in that 
position at the drop of a hat, and they are. So when we fight for 
Medicaid and we fight for Medicare, we do it because it is really an 
important piece of community. It is an important piece of this country 
and what we are all about as Members of this institution, as members of 
our party.
  So I thank the gentlewoman for taking the time this evening and for 
giving us an opportunity to talk about the effect on seniors. We need 
to get this Government back working full time. Senator Dole was 
absolutely correct, enough is enough. ``I do not see any sense in what 
we have been doing,'' he said. I would hope that we would have a quick 
action in this House of Representatives. People have been gone from 
their jobs long enough. Enough is enough. The majority leader said that 
in the Senate. We need to take him at his word.
  We are going to try tomorrow to bring up a clean CR. We are going to 
try again to get these folks back to work, these services provided to 
the American people, so we can get on with these budget talks and get 
on with the sense of community.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the minority whip. I think that you are right. 
The public wants to see us every day continue to fight on their behalf. 
So we now have had 12 votes on trying to reopen this Government. We 
ought to have as many as necessary, and have one everyday if that is 
what it takes to reopen this Government. I thank you all for your 
comments and for your unbelievable work in this area.
  Mr. WISE. If the gentlewoman would yield, if I could just take 2 
minutes at the most to just mention what the impact on seniors is in my 
state. We have done some checking, and the fact that the Government is 
shut down, a partial shutdown, still affects senior citizens greatly. 
For instance, we have done some checking and find out that the 
thousands of black lung recipients, these are coal miners who have 
worked a minimum of 20 years, but most often 30 or 40 years in the coal 
mines, and have received a determination they are 100 percent disabled 
as a result of pneumococcus, black lung, coal dust in their lungs. They 
wake up choking every morning black dust. The Department of Labor will 
not be able to make full black lung payments after next month if this 
Government remains shut down in the present state it is in.
  We have many workers, of course, who are retired railroad workers. 
The Railroad Retirement Board tells us that 2,700 retirees in our State 
will see a 64-percent reduction in their vested dual benefits as a 
result of this shutdown if it is not alleviated quickly.
  Medicare vendors will be affected as well. These are people providing 
services that Medicare recipients depend upon. They will be affected in 
the payment of their bills.
  We have heard a lot about how Meals on Wheels are not affected by 
this, some saying they have been out there and said in such an area the 
program will go indefinitely. That is only if the local government 
picks up the share. In West Virginia, Meals on Wheels at the Federal 
level will not be able to continue after January 15. Yes; the State can 
pick up the difference. The problem is our State, like every other 
State, is trying to anticipate the cuts that are coming eventually in 
Medicaid and the other programs that are so important, and there is no 
money to go around.
  So whether it is black lung, whether it is railroad retirees, whether 
it is Social Security recipients, Medicare vendors, all nature of 
senior citizens, the programs attendant to them, the fact that this 
Government is shut down, through no fault of their own, means they will 
not be getting these services.
  I might point out, referring to the debate that is taking place over 
what the budget should be over the next 7 years, this is because of the 
Republican leadership's failure to let this Government function. The 
Senate leadership has said it should function, Republicans and 
Democrats. Democrats in the House said it should function. We voted 12 
times to do so. I urge the Republican leadership to take this burden 
off our seniors while there is still time and before people begin to 
feel the pain.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia. I am delighted 
to recognize and have join in this conversation the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding. I want to commend her also for her hard work and 
enthusiasm and working for seniors and working for not only her 
constituents, but working for people all across this country. We 
certainly thank you for having this special order.

[[Page H177]]

  Let me also echo something that the gentleman from Virginia said. He 
talked about those people who are clothed with responsibility of 
regulating the Social Security have already stated that it will only 
need about $90 billion cut, yet Members of the other side of the aisle 
choose to cut it by somewhere in the neighborhood of $270 billion. So 
that goes to show you how far we are apart, not only Democrat-
Republicans, but Republicans as relates to those individuals who are 
clothed with responsibility of even regulating these programs.
  Also, I wanted to make mention of the fact that this is not the first 
time we have had a budget impasse. We have had budget impasses year 
after year after year. As a matter of fact, over the past 12 years, we 
have had 57 CR's, where we continue to operate the Government, and in 
the process of operating the Government we had budget negotiations. I 
just find it to be totally irresponsible. It is irresponsible for the 
Members on the other side of the aisle to hold working people in this 
country, Federal employees, hostage, while we try to do and complete 
the business of this country.
  If you really look at it in the real sense, you will find it is our 
responsibility to run the Federal Government. We have tried, Members of 
this side of the aisle have tried time after time after time to try to 
pass CR's, to get the Government back moving, to get people back to 
work. We have even said listen, it is irresponsible of us as Members of 
Congress who are clothed with responsibility of running the Government, 
and half of the Government is not running, it is irresponsible of us to 
continue to receive pay.
  So Members of this side of the aisle even went so far to say we are 
the last people who ought to be paid, because it is our responsibility, 
our fiduciary responsibility, to run this Government. If anybody should 
be affected by this closure, by these pay cuts, it should be us. But 
Members on the other side of the aisle chose not to do that.
  I would hope there would be some agreement tonight in the Committee 
on Rules, and on tomorrow I would hope we could step on this floor and 
pass a CR and get this Government moving again.
  The gentlewoman is right. You are talking about seniors. Seniors are 
affected by this. I receive calls everyday from my district. Ms. Bass, 
who works for the Social Security office in my district, in Louisiana, 
she calls every day. She had a very boring Christmas. These people live 
paycheck to paycheck. They do not have the luxury of having thousands 
upon thousands of dollars in the bank and in savings. Every nickel, 
every penny counts. And we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. It is all 
right to negotiate and it is all right to have an impasse as long as 
negotiations are taking place. But it is not all right to take bread 
off of working people's tables in this Nation.

  Let me close by talking a little bit about Meals on Wheels. The 
gentleman who spoke before me is absolutely right. That program is 
affected. In my own state, they are running out of money, and January 
15, the gentleman is right, the state will not have the money to 
subsidize this program. So a lot of seniors in my district will go 
without food.
  These are real issues affecting real people. So I just wanted to 
thank the gentlewoman for taking this time and continue to fight, and I 
would hope that tonight some meaningful resolution will occur in the 
Committee on Rules and tomorrow we can get this government moving again 
and get people back to work.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I just want to make 
one point, that someone of our Republican colleagues today said on the 
floor that he did not hold the key to opening the Government and put 
the blame on the President.
  Well, I would submit to my colleague and all my Republican colleagues 
that the voting card, which is what the people that voted us to these 
offices gave us, they gave us this ability, to use this card. You do 
not need a key, you do not need a magic bullet, you do not need 
anything else. You need to take this card and you need to vote ``aye'' 
to open this Government. That is what this is. That is what this is 
about.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the Members of this body will have the 
opportunity tomorrow to take a green card, to vote ``aye,'' and to open 
the Government completely. We will have that opportunity on the 
previous question on the rule. That will be the vote that will say to 
the American people who wants this Government closed and shut down and 
who wants it open; and who wants those services denied the American 
people, whether it is Head Start money, or whether it is contracting 
money for NASA projects, whether it is cleaning up our Superfund waste 
sites, all of these questions are going to be cloaked on whether a 
Member picks a red card or picks a green card.
  That chance will occur tomorrow. We have a rule that will be coming 
out of the Committee on Rules very shortly on the floor and it will 
occur on the previous question on the rule. There are 12 Republican 
colleagues over here who have today said they want to support Bob Dole, 
the majority leader in the Senate, in having a clean CR and putting 
this Government back to work and support the Democrats, and I urge the 
rest of them to join in doing that so we can get things back on track 
again.
  Ms. DeLAURO. We have 197 Democrats who are prepared to vote ``aye'' 
to open this Government. We need 20 good Republicans to do that.
  I now would like to yield time to my colleague from New York, Major 
Owens, who has been a champion on education and other areas, and 
particularly on seniors.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to thank my colleague from 
Connecticut for this special order and focus particularly on senior 
citizens.
  Senior citizens in New York, senior citizens in my district, 
certainly are experiencing an atmosphere of terror. No matter how many 
times we reassure them that their Social Security checks will not be 
affected by the shutdown; the fact that the shutdown involves the 
Department of Health and Human Services, the fact that Donna Shalala 
has been on television talking about the kinds of things that have been 
happening, even though she reassures people it will not affect their 
Social Security checks, we keep getting the calls about the Social 
Security checks.
  New York, of course, has to bear the burden of a mean-spirited and 
extreme approach at three levels. Not only do we have a shutdown in 
Washington, but we have a mean-spirited approach in Albany, where the 
Governor is trying to get ahead of the Republicans here in Congress and 
has started imposing new rules on nursing homes already. And a mayor 
who is also in sync with the cuts of Medicare and Medicaid. They are 
applauding.
  So when we have a mayor and Governor and we have a shutdown in 
Washington, they live in a state of mental terror. Nobody is going to 
do them physical harm, and probably New York State and New York City, 
they are big enough to borrow the money to keep the Meals on Wheels 
program going and any other program going, but the state of terror is 
such that some people are going to have their lives shortened just from 
worrying themselves to death.
  They are worried because the mayor has said he wants to sell 
hospitals. And when he cannot get buyers for the hospitals, now he is 
willing to lease hospitals. Recently the Governor announced he is going 
to close down one of the largest psychiatric centers, Kingsboro 
Psychiatric Center, in my district. It is a large hospital, located in 
a big hospital center, so people think he is going to close down Kings 
County Hospital, which is the biggest municipal hospital in the city.
  The rumors generate and people are very much frightened when they 
hear Medicaid being thrown into the hopper. And if there is no Medicaid 
entitlement, that means they are not guaranteed nursing homes. New York 
State has one of the biggest Medicaid and Medicare programs in the 
country, and they hear on television our State being criticized for 
being so generous. I am not so sure we are too generous. We have some 
very good programs and take very good care of senior citizens. With all 
the generosity with respect to health care, New York State still sends 
to the Federal Government $18 billion more. In 1994 we sent $18 billion 
more to the Federal Government than we got back. Before that it was $23 
billion. 

[[Page H178]]
And for the last 20 years New York State has sent more money to the 
Federal Government than it has gotten back.
  There are a whole wealth of States in the South and Southwest that 
have gotten $65 billion more in 1994 than they paid to the Federal 
Government, but we consistently pay more into the Federal Government 
than we get back. So Medicare, Medicaid, that is one of the ways our 
citizens get back some of their tax money.
  People are terrified with the thought that all this is going to 
change. Because if Medicaid is no longer an entitlement, then two-
thirds of our Medicaid money, which goes for nursing homes, is up for 
grabs. And I think this kind of special order helps to reassure them 
that at least Democrats here are fighting. This is a profound debate. 
It is also a desperate debate. We are desperately fighting to protect 
some very profound and concrete benefits for people who need them, and 
I thank the gentlewoman very much for this opportunity.

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman and just say 
what a number of my colleagues have said, that, in fact, this is worth 
the fight; that there are fundamental differences about the values of 
this Nation and its priorities and whether we stand for Medicare and 
Medicaid and education and the environment and for working class 
families in this country, or we stand for a $245 billion tax break for 
the wealthiest Americans.
  Let me tell my colleagues that Speaker Gingrich, since last April, 
has made statements about shutting down this Government. In June, he 
said,

       We are going to go over to the liberal Democratic part of 
     the Government and then say to them we could last 60 days, 90 
     days, 120 days, 5 years, a century. There is a lot of stuff 
     we don't care if it is ever funded. I don't care what the 
     price is. I don't care if we have no executive offices and no 
     bonds for 30 days. Not this time.

  That was in September. The fact of the matter is he has been fanning, 
inflaming, and planning for a shutdown. We have a shutdown, with 
unbelievable desperate effects on senior citizens in this country. We 
sill have an opportunity to vote tomorrow with our voting card to vote 
``aye'' to reopen this Government. We need 20 Republicans who will, in 
fact, follow the lead of their districts and the people who sent them 
here to serve them rather than following their allegiance to Newt 
Gingrich.
  That is what this is about, and the desperate effects that this 
shutdown has on seniors in our communities and veterans in our 
communities. Do not be fooled by the rhetoric of a balanced budget. It 
is balanced and it helps the richest people in this country and hurts 
seniors and veterans and students and working families.
  I want to yield now to my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone.
  Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to say that I am really pleased that the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut stresses the basic differences that there 
are here on this budget and how this is really a budget battle that 
concerns major differences on the issues of Medicare and Medicaid, 
education, and the environment.
  I am so afraid that the public, in some ways, has got a distorted 
impression of why we feel that it is incumbent to bring up a continuing 
resolution to open up the Government again. Historically, in this House 
and in the Congress, when there have been differences over 
appropriations bills, differences over the budget, everyone has agreed 
to continue the Government, let it operate while those negotiations go 
on. That is all we are asking. We want the Government open while these 
budget negotiations go on. And I think there is a responsibility of the 
Republican majority to do that.
  Ms. DeLAURO. This argument is directed at a Democratic President.

                          ____________________