[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5042-H5049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 IMPORTANT ISSUES WHICH DEFINE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND 
                    DEMOCRATS IN THE 104TH CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chabot). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address my 
colleagues in this obviously empty Chamber, even at this late hour, 
because I am going to be discussing some issues that I think are of 
paramount importance and which define the differences between the 
Republican and Democratic Parties in the 104th Congress.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, I happened to hear the first half hour of the 
last hour, which involved comments by my good friend, the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], regarding our budget proposal, which 
will be coming to the House floor here in the next couple of days. This 
is the budget proposal for the coming Federal fiscal year which will 
begin on October 1 of this year.
  As is very typical, he made very disparaging remarks about our plans 
to save Medicare from bankruptcy and our plans to reform Medicaid into 
a block grant program for the States. These tactics are not isolated to 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] alone. They run rampant 
through the national Democratic Party today, as the Democratic Party 
has seized on this particular issue to frighten and scare Americans in 
the hopes that they can, by employing these kinds of tactics, regain 
control of the House and Senate in the November elections.
  Mr. Speaker, what we get, instead of constructive debate on the House 
floor, are what I would prefer to call drive-by special orders. In 
fact, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is still present. He 
is standing toward the rear of the Chamber, grinning. I would invite 
him to return to this very podium where he made his comments and engage 
in actual debate, rather than stand up and demagogue on these issues.
  The first thing, Mr. Speaker, the American people need to know is 
that the Republican and Democratic Party, if you use President 
Clinton's budget proposal as their blueprint for reforming Medicare, 
are roughly $30 billion apart. In the context of a 6-year balanced 
budget plan, that is a very small difference between the Republican and 
Democratic Parties.
  But again, we would never know that to listen to my Democratic 
colleagues, who insist on demagoguing this issue, and who, frankly, 
never mention that President Clinton, the leader of their party, has 
put forward a plan to reform Medicare by reducing the growth in 
Medicare expenditures.
  Another way of putting that is that both the Republicans and 
Democrats want, at least, again, if you use President Clinton's 
proposal and not the comments of the far left wing of his party in the 
House and Senate, if you use his proposal, we both want to increase 
Medicare spending but at a slower rate, at a sustainable rate, in order 
to save the program from bankruptcy.
  Before he might have to depart, I yield to my good friend, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, even though there are only a few of us 
present now, I am going to pose a pop quiz to the House. The question 
is who made the following statement:

       Today, Medicaid and Medicare are going up at three times 
     the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at two 
     times the rate of inflation. That is not, I repeat, not a 
     Medicare or Medicaid cut. And we have kept private sector 
     increases so they won't go up as much. So only in 
     Washington do people believe that no one can get by on 
     twice the rate of inflation. So when you hear all this 
     business about cuts, let me caution you, that is not what 
     is going on.

  Now, who made those comments: President Clinton or Newt Gingrich,

[[Page H5043]]

the Speaker of the House? If you guessed President Clinton, you were 
right. He made those comments on October 5, 1993. On May 16, 1995, more 
recently, he said, ``I believe we have to slow the growth of 
Medicare.''
  Mr. Speaker, compare the comments of President Clinton to what you 
hear tonight on the House floor from people like the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone]. Then think for a moment on this particular quote. 
This is a quote by the former Democrat Governor of Colorado, Gov. 
Richard Lamb, in Newsweek May 13, so just the other day: ``I am awed by 
his,'' referring to President Clinton, ``I am awed by his understanding 
of this insolvency of Medicare, which just makes his demagoguing worse. 
He knows what is happening, yet he is poisoning the well. Medicare is 
not as bad off as the Republicans said, it's must worse.''
  So that is what we hear nightly out here during special orders, is 
Democrats demagoguing this issue and poisoning the well, and ruining 
any chance of a bipartisan proposal, a bipartisan solution to save 
Medicare from bankruptcy.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone], as well. I do want to continue in the vein of a 
pop quiz, since it is getting near the end of the school year, and 
since there are a lot of kids there, students who are picking up the 
brunt of this huge, massive debt.
  Let me give you a number. As of today, by the way, our debt is 
$5,092,815,215,000. To help senior citizens, to help the middle class, 
to help the young folks, we have to get our head out of the sand and 
say, OK, it is time to act like we do have a debt out there after all, 
and let us be responsible and work together in a bipartisan fashion and 
quit all this election year sniping, which apparently is so addictive 
and tempting these days.
  The pop quiz. I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs], your final exam: Which number is larger, $179 billion, or $304 
billion. Which one is larger?
  Mr. RIGGS. I think I can answer that one, even though I do not 
pretend to be any kind of mathematics expert, but obviously the $300 
billion figure is much larger.
  Mr. KINGSTON. You are doing well so far. Question No. 2: If the House 
raised Medicare from $179 billion to $304 billion, would they be 
increasing Medicare, decreasing Medicare, or leaving it level?
  Mr. RIGGS. They obviously would be increasing.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Increasing. So why do you suppose there are Members of 
the House who say increasing Medicare from $179 to $304 billion is a 
cut? Can you explain that? That is the discussion question.
  Mr. RIGGS. It is. In fact, let me just add, to personalize it a 
little bit more for our colleagues and for any Americans, our fellow 
Americans who might be listening to us, our plan to save Medicare from 
bankruptcy, while increasing Medicare spending and increasing Medicare 
health care choices, increasing Medicare spending per senior citizen 
from $4,800 per citizen per year in 1996 to $7,300 per senior citizen 
in 6 years. Obviously when you go from $4,800 today to $7,300 over the 
next 6 years, you are increasing Medicare spending per senior citizen. 
No matter which way you slice it, that happens to be an increase.
  Let me stop and see if the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] 
would like to join me at this point in time.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone.]
  Mr. PALLONE. I certainly would like to debate these issues, Mr. 
Speaker. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I do not think the 
issue really is whether we are talking about a cut in the increase or 
an overall cut after inflation. To me the problem here is----
  Mr. KINGSTON. A cut is not the issue at all. As a matter of fact, we 
just said, beyond a doubt, that if you, if I could point out----
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If we want to have a discussion, let us get on the 
concrete foundation that the figure $179 is smaller than the number 
$304, and remove from the discussion that Medicare is cut. Could we 
agree that $304 is bigger than $179?

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. PALLONE. I would like the gentleman to yield me some time if I 
could talk about this. If not, there is no point, if I am not going to 
be given a couple of minutes or so to respond.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to give the gentleman a chance to 
respond, but I appreciate the statement of my colleague from Georgia 
and again we hope that you can perhaps tell us what your proposal is to 
save Medicare from bankruptcy.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. If I could 
have a couple of minutes to respond.
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman. First of all, I would point out 
that the level of cuts that the Republicans are talking about in this 
budget are not necessary for Medicare solvency. Basically what the 
Republicans are proposing are cuts that are $44 billion more for 
Medicare than what President Clinton has proposed in his budget.
  Let us keep in mind that the President proposed a budget earlier this 
year, and now the Republican budget that is coming up this Thursday for 
a vote is basically a counterproposal to that. The President 
acknowledges, as every Democratic Congress has in the past, that it is 
necessary to deal with the Medicare program and make sure that the 
trust continues to be solvent. That is why he has proposed a certain 
level of cuts in Medicare. But those are strictly to keep the trust 
fund solvent.
  Mr. Speaker, the level of cuts that the Republicans are proposing, 
which is significantly more than the President, these are the things 
that I have a problem with, and I believe that those are being used 
primarily to pay for tax breaks. More important than that, and I 
stressed earlier this evening, is that the very nature of the Medicare 
program changes with this Republican proposal. Basically what you are 
doing is cutting down and eliminating choices. You are pushing a lot 
more seniors, in fact I think eventually all seniors, into managed care 
or HMO's where oftentimes they are not going to have a choice of 
doctors or even hospitals. You are allowing for a different 
reimbursement system, basically providing a higher level of 
reimbursement for HMO's or managed care than the traditional fee-for-
service system where you can choose your own doctor, and then you allow 
balanced billing. In other words, doctors can charge more for people 
who stay in the traditional Medicare so there will be a larger out-of-
pocket expense for those who continue to stay in the traditional fee-
for-service program where they have their choice of doctors.

  In addition to that, you have introduced this notion of medical 
savings accounts, which basically establishes a catastrophic health 
insurance policy which only the healthiest and the wealthiest senior 
citizens are going to be able to afford.
  So three major points in the existing Medicare Program have existed 
essentially for the last 30 years. One is unlimited choice of doctors 
and hospitals. Second is a limit, I think it is 15 percent, on the 
amount that can be charged as a co-payment by the physician beyond 
Medicare, plus the guarantee that if you are in Medicare, you are going 
to have a certain level of health services that are provided for. All 
three of those things are negatively impacted by the Republican 
proposal.
  What I am saying is that those are not necessary in order to 
guarantee the solvency of the program, if you simply implement the 
level of cuts that the President has proposed, and then you will keep 
the Medicare Program solvent.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a choice Thursday. It is going to 
be the Republican budget. There is going to be the President's budget, 
and there may be a lot of other alternatives. What I am saying is the 
President's budget is far superior and solves the problem of solvency. 
So, the Republicans in raising this issue of solvency are using it as 
an excuse to cover all the other changes that they are suggesting to 
make in the Medicare Program.
  Mr. RIGGS. Let me reclaim my time and give the gentleman a chance to 
catch his breath.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first of all point out that our plan very clearly 
says right on its face that no older American who is currently 
receiving Medicare health care benefits will be forced

[[Page H5044]]

out of the traditional fee-for-service program. It does provide other 
options for health care, and the gentleman from New Jersey mentioned a 
couple, managed care, and medical savings accounts. We think those are 
both progressive ideas, designed to build more flexibility into the 
program, ultimately give more choice to Medicare recipients and frankly 
to empower them to be more involved with decisions having to do with 
their own personal health care.
  Let me point out that, second, a fact that the gentleman kind of 
skipped over. Let me back up for just a moment.
  Let me also stipulate that our plan requires that any savings from 
reducing the rate of growth in Medicare expenditures must stay in the 
Medicare Program. As a consequence, the Congressional Budget Office 
says that our program will extend the life or the solvency of the 
hospital insurance trust fund to the year 2008, which is 3 years more 
than the President's proposal.
  So, yes, we are bolder because we are trying to think not just of the 
needs of today's seniors but the needs of the next generation of 
Medicare recipients as well. But I want to come back to one point 
because I really want to understand this in terms of the gentleman's 
position.
  Do I understand correctly that your position is that the roughly $120 
billion I believe that is in Medicare savings that the President 
proposed is OK? That is to say, you are comfortable with that? You can 
support that level of savings? You will vote on this floor if you have 
the opportunity for that level of savings? But you object to our figure 
which is roughly now, and I know we are talking ballpark figures here, 
but our figure is roughly $30 billion more in savings, which you 
characterize as cuts.

  Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman will yield further, let me say this. I 
am not in charge of the rules process but I believe that there will be 
an opportunity on Thursday to vote on the President's budget as an 
alternative and, yes, I will vote for that assuming that that is in 
order and that we have that opportunity. I am also concerned about the 
level of cuts in the President's budget but obviously I think it is far 
preferable to what the Republican leadership has proposed and I will 
support it. The concern I have is that the level of cuts, and obviously 
even more aggravated in terms of what the Republican leadership has 
proposed, is going to have a very negative impact on hospitals. In 
other words, if you look at the level of cuts in the Republican budget, 
most of the money that is proposed to be cut comes out of Part A which 
is of course primarily paying or reimbursement for hospital care. We 
know, because that same level is basically what was proposed in 1995, 
that many hospitals will not be able to absorb that level of cut 
primarily because they are 50, 60 in some cases better than 60 percent 
dependent on Medicare. So I do think that there is a danger and that we 
are kidding ourselves here if we think that we can continue to make 
these level of cuts that you propose. I know it is a little better than 
1995 overall but it is not really better in terms of Part A and what 
that means for the Nation's hospitals.
  I would venture to say that the President's proposal is significantly 
less in terms of the level of cuts to hospitals and that is far 
preferable because it will mean that many of these hospitals, and I 
think in particular of my home State, will be able to survive with that 
level of cuts, whereas they may not be able to, or most likely will not 
be able to under what the Republican leadership has proposed.
  But even beyond that again it is the changes in the Medicare Program 
that you are proposing that bother me the most. I think it is going to 
significantly change the nature of the Medicare Program and not provide 
the guarantee that seniors have had for the last 30 years in terms of 
the unlimited choice of doctors and being protected against additional 
costs that would be charged by physicians.
  Mr. RIGGS. Let me reclaim my time and state to the gentleman again so 
he is absolutely clear on this point, we have made, I think 
emphatically clear to the American people from day one that anyone 
presently in the Medicare Program under the traditional fee-for-service 
arrangement could stay in that program. That is explicitly built into 
the legislation.
  I also want to make the point, then I am going to yield to the 
gentleman from Georgia, and I hope the gentleman will stay because I 
will yield him more time, but I also want to point out that the 
Democrat plan does not contain the same incentives for rooting out 
waste, fraud, and abuse, not the same aggressive incentives that ours 
have, including a financial incentive to those Medicare recipients who 
do report waste, fraud, and abuse in the system, and I think we all 
know that there is rampant waste, fraud, and abuse, almost endemic to 
the system.
  Second, it does not provide the same flexibility in choices that we 
have offered Medicare recipients in our plan. I am a Californian, I 
admit California is on the cutting edge of the Nation in terms of 
introducing the idea of managed care on an outpatient basis for all age 
groups, not just older Americans, and I am absolutely convinced that 
managed care is a viable health care alternative for those Medicare 
recipients who are either already enrolled in managed care programs 
that are quite satisfactory in terms of their needs, in their opinion, 
meeting their needs, and, second, in terms of giving Americans again 
more say, more of a role, in making their own health care decisions.
  We are not forcing anyone out of the program. We are trying to bring 
a 1950's style program into the 1990's. Again I say to the gentleman, 
he insists on continuing to use the term cuts to describe our program. 
But as that gap between the Republican proposal and the Clinton 
proposal narrow, at what point do you cease to describe our program as 
a cut? That was the question posed to the President at the press 
conference last week, and he sort of hemmed and hawed. He ultimately, 
as many times he does when he is pinned down, he ultimately blamed the 
media for introducing the use of the term cuts into the debate, and 
nothing could be further from the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth is that that term has been used out on this 
floor of the other body repeatedly. I believe it has been identified by 
the Democratic Party strategists as the key wedge issue to be used as a 
political football, if you will, to try to regain control of the House 
and the Senate.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, there is no question that 
this is the liberal Washington keep the status quo propaganda machine 
using the word cut. And the gentleman from New Jersey, who I respect, I 
think maybe it is a reflection of the New Jersey school system when he 
refers to going from $304 billion from $179 billion as a cut, where all 
the rest of the States across the country would call that an increase.
  Moving on, though, with his concern about hospitals, I am concerned 
about hospitals but only after I am concerned about patients and senior 
citizens. I think that the patients, you have to put the patients 
first. I am sorry about the hospital system in New Jersey, but again I 
am more concerned about the patients.
  My mother, as I believe your parents are, as well, is on Medicare. It 
is a 1964 Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan. I like the idea of mom having 
choices because I trust her and I trust other people's parents and 
their children's ability to choose what health care plan fits them 
best. Right now it is Medicare or Medicare, period. Under the proposal 
they would have a physicians service network as an option. They would 
have a managed care plan as an option. They would have traditional 
Medicare as an option. They would have medical savings accounts as an 
option.

  Mr. Speaker, all these are actuarially worked into the formula that 
increases the benefit from around $5,000 to $7,200. The numbers vary 
slightly, but the fact is that it does give more choices while cracking 
down on fraud and abuse.
  My dad lives in a condominium complex in Athens, GA, where there are 
a number of other seniors. My dad has macular degeneration, is legally 
blind, he has diabetes. But all the seniors in his complex work 
together and go over each other's bills, medical, food needs, and so 
forth. He says just about without exception when they go to the 
hospital for a head cold, they get billed for x rays or something just 
totally ridiculous. I do not think it is all fraud, but it is just a 
general sloppiness that Medicare is paying for it, so do not worry

[[Page H5045]]

about it. We have got to crack down on that abuse because it is right 
out of our seniors' pockets.
  One other thing that the gentleman from New Jersey mentioned was this 
tax cut thing, and maybe we could just at this point agree that we 
disagree on Medicare. We want to save and protect it one way, and the 
President wants to keep patching it up another way until the next 
election. I think that it is important--and one of our great 
challenges, where he saves the program until 2008, we need to save it 
ad infinitum but at least get beyond the election cycle.
  I note with interest that one of the things about the Clinton budget 
is that 74 percent of the reductions, the deficit reductions in the 
overall budget come the last 2 years, which is 2 years after he is out 
of office if he was to be reelected. So here we have got the pain, as 
usual, coming later, whereas the Republican budget overall reduces 
spending and savings, consolidates the size of Government over a 6-year 
period of time. It is more fair and more equitable that way.
  Mr. Speaker, the thing, though, our profamily budget also calls for a 
tax credit of $500 per child for families under $110,000. I have always 
thought of New Jersey as having higher incomes than Georgia; $110,000, 
you can live well. But the fact is that is a combined income, and that 
still in many cases is very middle class.
  I would like to ask our friend from New Jersey when we talk about tax 
cuts for the wealthy, which I have heard him and many of his colleagues 
expound on over and over again, who are the wealthy that we are talking 
about in this budget that would benefit and maybe even why it is so bad 
to do anything for the wealthy. I would like to just throw that 
question out to the gentleman.

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. RIGGS. Let me pose that question to him, and then maybe the 
gentleman from New Jersey will also tell us where he stands on the 
repeal of the Clinton Democratic gas tax increase, which will be coming 
to this House floor early next week. I will yield to the gentleman from 
New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Well, you are probably asking the wrong person, because 
I did not vote for the original gas tax increase, and I would have no 
problem and would certainly vote for the repeal.
  I only mentioned the tax breaks because of my concern over the fact 
that the Medicare cuts as well as the Medicaid cuts I believe will be 
used to finance them. I know that one of the things that the gentleman 
said before, which I am very concerned about, he said we were going to 
have a guarantee that you could stay in the traditional fee-for-service 
plan and that whatever cuts were implemented by the Republican 
leadership would stay in the Medicare Program.
  I would say that those promises are not real. First of all, because 
in 1995, when we discussed the issue, we tried to put an amendment in 
the budget that would say that all the money that was saved in Medicare 
and Medicaid would only be used for those programs. That amendment was 
actually defeated on the floor of this House. I voted for it. So I 
think it is a false promise.
  Second, when you talk about the guarantee that you will be able to 
stay in the fee-for-service or traditional Medicare Program, again, the 
guarantee does not mean anything if you build into your proposed 
changes in Medicare a different reimbursement rate for managed care and 
HMO's versus the traditional fee-for-service program where you can 
choose your own doctor.
  That is the problem here. You are building in incentives that 
basically make people or force people to go into HMO's, because the 
reimbursement rate because of the caps will be higher for HMO's and 
managed care and lower for the traditional fee-for-service system. 
Under the traditional fee-for-service system you are going to allow 
balanced billing. You are saying the doctors can charge more than the 
15 percent now allowed under current law. Basically what is going to 
happen here, even though there may be something written in the 
legislation that says you can stay in the traditional Medicare system, 
the reimbursement rate, and money drives everything, is going to push 
people into managed care and into HMO's.
  I am not saying managed care and HMO's are always bad. There are some 
that are very good. The bottom line is a lot of seniors are used to 
having their own choice of doctors, and depending on the area, they may 
not be able to get into an HMO or managed care system where their 
doctor is covered by that system. So this notion of choice, that 
somehow the Republican leadership plan is going to guarantee choice or 
provide lots of other choices, I think is a false promise, and 
particularly when you talk about the MSA's.
  I believe you brought up the issue of the medical savings accounts. 
That is nothing more than catastrophic health care coverage. What I 
think is going to happen is once again the healthy and wealthy people 
will choose that because they can afford to put the money aside and not 
worry about whether they are going to have to pay out of pocket for the 
health care and just have this catastrophic coverage.
  The people remaining in the Medicare system are going to be the 
sicker and probably the poorer people. That is going to drive up the 
cost for the Government for those that remain in the system. I am 
fearful what you are doing here is creating a sort of two-
tiered system, pushing certain seniors into managed care, having a lot 
of them opt out for this catastrophic coverage that they may not 
necessarily know what they are getting into.

  When you say you are still going to be able to have your traditional 
Medicare, the bottom line is you really are not, because you are 
creating incentives that will make it more difficult for that to 
happen.
  I also wanted to address the issue of fraud. This was a big issue for 
the Democrats in the last Congress. Again, I was in the Committee on 
Commerce, I am a member of the Committee on Commerce, and we 
specifically tried to change the language that was in the Republican 
bill that made it easier for those who were committing fraud or were 
basically abusing the Medicare system to get away with it.
  The standard of proof that was put into place in that budget last 
year, and I suspect it is the same this year unless you show me 
differently, was actually watered down, so it would be more difficult 
to prosecute those who were violating Medicare and abusing the system.
  I am 100 percent for trying to crack down on fraud and abuse. I think 
you can save a significant amount of money if you do that. Do not 
weaken the standard of proof and make it more difficult for the Justice 
Department and others to go after those committing the fraud and abuse. 
Otherwise you will have a worse system in terms of prosecuting those 
people.
  Lastly, I do not want to get into semantics. I have said over and 
over, I think the gentleman from Georgia was here when I said it in 
1995, we are talking about a cut in the growth of the program. I keep 
using the term ``cut.'' Maybe you do not like the term ``cut'' in 
growth, but I will say one thing, I use it for both the President and 
for the Republican proposal. The bottom line is that if you do not have 
enough money in Medicare to continue to service to the growing number 
of people who are going to be in the system, because we know there are 
going to be more seniors, the baby-boomer generation is getting older 
and there are going to be more and more seniors in the system, if you 
do not have enough money to cover that growth, in reality what you are 
doing is cutting the amount of money to be available to these people 
and the need is going to be there and there is not going to be the 
money to take care of the growing number of seniors.
  I do not see this as a political issue. I know that has been raised 
many times on the floor. I am someone who has cared about seniors for a 
long time. I have worked for protective services for the elderly in 
various capacities. There is a lot of politics in this House of 
Representatives. The bottom line is we have to look at the substance of 
what is going on here. We are talking about the substantive changes of 
what would happen, what changes would exist in the Medicare Program, if 
this Republican proposal goes through.

  That is why I think we need to continue to fight against it. Even if 
it passes on Thursday, which I suspect it will, I will be continuing to 
speak out against it as I have tonight.

[[Page H5046]]

  I appreciate the time that you gentlemen have given me this evening.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman does not want to talk about taxes?
  Mr. PALLONE. I will be glad to talk about taxes.
  Mr. RIGGS. I am going to reclaim my time. We will talk about taxes in 
a moment. The point I want to make is that House Republicans and Senate 
Republicans have acted responsibly in this session of Congress. We sent 
the President a viable piece of legislation known as the Medicare 
Preservation Act and he vetoed that legislation. What is coming to the 
House floor, I believe the gentleman said Wednesday or Thursday, later 
this week, is a budget resolution for the Federal fiscal year 1997. It 
assumes a certain amount of savings in the Medicare Program, but it is 
not a comprehensive plan to preserve and protect Medicare from 
bankruptcy, such as the legislation the President vetoed.
  I also want to make a point, and that is the gentleman repeatedly 
refers to HMO's. But I am perplexed, because there are literally 
thousands of older Americans today who are already in Medicare health 
maintenance organizations. I hear from many of them, I am sure the 
gentleman must have heard from some of them, that there is a high level 
of satisfaction for the most part with the services that they are 
receiving through those HMO's. After all, no one has forced them into 
those HMO's. They still have the option of relying on the traditional 
fee-for-service arrangement, yet they have voluntarily opted to enroll 
in Medicare health maintenance organizations.
  So I believe that that is evidence that HMO's or managed care can be 
introduced alongside the traditional fee-for-service arrangement, with 
again the ironclad guarantee that we built into the legislation, which 
is that no older American currently receiving Medicare benefits would 
be forced out of the traditional fee-for-service program.
  I also want to point out to the gentleman that I hope he is 
committed, and he makes some constructive suggestions, it sounds like 
he would like to, if we could agree on the ultimate level of savings to 
be achieved, to help us fine tune this legislation. But I want to point 
out that if we do not act, we will be remiss in our leadership 
responsibilities as elected officials, at least in my view, especially 
since we now know, every Member of this body, every Member of the other 
body, knows that Medicare will be bankrupt no later than the year 2001, 
just 5 years from now, and that is a year sooner than the Medicare 
trustees warned Congress a year ago last month, April 1995. As both 
gentlemen know, several of those Medicare trustees are members of the 
President's Cabinet.
  Now, those estimates of Medicare going bankrupt sooner than we had 
projected come from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. So let 
us assume that because of the partisan wrangling, because of those who 
are more interested in preserving Medicare as an issue for the fall 
election campaign than in actually preserving Medicare for the next 
generation, let us assume nothing happens and we continue down that 
road with Medicare going bankrupt. And I should point out at this 
juncture that this is not Frank Riggs, Republican, speaking now. Of 
course, these warnings are coming from not just the Congressional 
Budget Office, as I just mentioned, but from the mainstream media.

  For Pete's sake, the Washington Post, not exactly a conservative 
publication, editorialized on April 29, just a short time ago, ``By the 
end of the fiscal year 2001, the trust fund will have a deficit of $2.9 
billion because of rising costs. In other words, the fund will be 
bankrupt a year earlier than projected last year by Medicare program 
actuaries.''
  They go on to say, ``According to the Congressional Budget Office 
figures, the trust fund will be in the red by $331.6 billion by the end 
of fiscal year 2005.''
  You heard me right, a $331 billion deficit, $100 billion worse than 
the cumulative deficit forecast a year ago by the CBO, the $150 billion 
worse than the cumulative deficit projected by the Medicare actuaries 
last year.
  The last comment I wanted to quote, ``The new numbers appear to lend 
support to Republican charges that the Medicare hospital tust fund is 
deteriorating faster than had been realized and that steps must be 
taken quickly to arrest the decline.''
  So, if the gentleman happens to share those sentiments, I think he 
has an obligation to contribute constructively to the debate, rather 
than to come down here and do, as I suggested earlier, sort of join 
with the President in, to use the terms of former Colorado Democrat 
Governor Richard Lamb, poisoning the well. Because make no mistake 
about it, colleagues and the American people, the alternative, if we 
allow this program to go bankrupt, is a substantial increase in payroll 
taxes on the backs of every working American. The Medicare trustees and 
actuaries estimated roughly a 40-percent payroll tax would be necessary 
to replenish the hospital insurance trust fund if we did nothing, or we 
would be looking at the possibility of rationing health care benefits. 
In fact, by law, of Medicare goes bankrupt, no benefits can be paid, 
and therefore no services rendered or received.
  So I really want to urge the gentleman and his Democratic colleagues 
to start contributing constructively. If you have suggestions for how 
to save Medicare from bankruptcy, on how to modify or fine tune the 
Medicare Preservation Act which President Clinton vetoed, then, by all 
means, please put them on the table and stop poisoning the well.
  Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman will yield further, I have said over 
and over again that the President's budget which came out earlier this 
year guarantees the life of the Medicare trust fund in my opinion for 
as long as the Republican proposal. What I am saying is the additional 
Republican cuts, this additional $44 billion more in Medicare cuts, is 
not necessary for Medicare solvency.
  There is over $120 billion remaining in the trust fund. Although it 
did not perform as well as projected in 1995, the difference between 
the actual and projected performance was within the typical margin of 
error.
  The fund comes out with a report every year. In 1993 the President 
made certain corrections and signed into law a bill extending the life 
of the trust fund for 3 years. Now, he had an additional proposal to 
extend the life of the fund. We are not talking about his agreement 
about the fact that Medicare has a problem that needs to be tinkered 
with. I am saying these Republican proposals go much further than that 
and are not necessary and are proposals to change radically the nature 
of the Medicare Program. If we adopted the President's position and 
budget, we would solve the solvency problem, just like the Republican 
budget does as well.

  I wanted to say one more thing in closing. I know the gentleman 
mentioned there are some seniors in HMO's. But they are still a 
relatively small percentage. My point only is we should not be pushing 
seniors into HMO's establishing a different reimbursement rate and 
providing a financial incentive to go into HMO's.
  In my home State of New Jersey, there happen to be very few seniors 
in HMO's. Some of them are good. I think there are a lot of problems 
with HMO's in terms of disclosure, advertising, in terms of seniors and 
people in general not knowing what they are getting into.
  I would say one thing. You are right when you talk about the budget 
we are going to be voting on this Thursday basically being a skeleton. 
I know once that is adopted, and I am not going to support the 
Republican budget, that over the next few months we are going to be 
hammering out the details as to how this is going to be implemented 
until we get to reconciliation in the fall.
  The point I am making tonight is let us not in trying to hammer out 
that budget end the details, because the devil is in the details. Do 
not do the types of things that the Republicans proposed last year in 
terms of changing the Medicare Program, because I think that, going 
beyond the financial aspects and the level of cuts, that would be the 
most damaging thing that could be done to Medicare as we know it.
  But, again, I want to thank the gentlemen for giving me some of their 
time tonight to participate in this debate.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask the gentleman this: Having been turned down

[[Page H5047]]

getting time from you guys last Thursday when you controlled the time, 
would you, in the sense of fairness, make it a practice and tell your 
Democrat colleagues that Republicans do yield time and it would be 
very, very appreciative if Democrats would yield us time? Could you 
maybe take the lead on that, because I see there is some reluctance on 
your side.
  Mr. PALLONE. Let me say this: I think there are times when having a 
debate like this back and forth is valuable, and there are other times 
when it is available to just have one side represented for 1 hour and 
the other side for another hour. Why do we not see how it goes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. It is valuable if you believe in what you are saying. 
If you are saying stuff, as a couple of your colleagues were the other 
night about Newt Gingrich's statement regarding HCFA, and trying to 
imply that was a Medicare statement, which the people who were using 
that knew that to be a total lie on the House floor incidentally, I 
would say I would not want to yield the floor either if I was lying. 
But if I was truthing, I would yield the floor.
  I hope you will yield the floor and encourage your colleagues to 
yield the floor, not because of Republicans and Democrats, and one 
might look better than the other, but because we have problems in 
America. We all have parents and children and folks back home dependent 
on us.

                              {time}  2315

  I read a statistic the other day that something like only 10,000 
people in the history of the United States have served in Congress, and 
indeed there are only 435 of us right now. Folks curse Congress and 
kick Congress and laugh at politicians, rightly so, and yet they still 
depend on us to do this job, which is to work together and put the 
needs of American people and Government first, and not Republican or 
Democrat problems. I think it is always important to back up a step and 
remember what our job mission is and who our boss is.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentleman making that point. In fact, I 
was going to make a similar point, just reminding the gentleman from 
New Jersey that I think the exchange, and I think it has been a very 
civil and polite conversation that we have had tonight, is much more 
constructive for both our colleagues and for the American people.
  I do not want to violate House rules. We have to be respectful of 
those rules, but I think we should acknowledge at any given time we 
have a vast viewing audience watching the proceedings on this House 
floor. I think we have duty to inform and instruct them, and in the 
process I think we can still make clear the distinct differences 
between the two political parties in the House of Representatives.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments and 
participation tonight. I get the last word because I control the time, 
and I will just conclude this section of our special order, before we 
turn our attention to the budget, by quoting from the nonpartisan 
American Academy of Actuaries form December 21 of last year.
  They said--now, bear in mind these are nonpartisan actuaries, people 
who do this kind of financial forecasting for a living--they said that 
the President's budget does not protect Medicare from bankruptcy, and 
went on to say:

       It is similar to the quick fixes enacted in the past that 
     have allowed the Medicare program to fall into its current 
     financial state. This proposal also includes accounting 
     tricks. In the long run these tricks undermine the economic 
     discipline of the trust fund.

  So I hope our colleagues will realize that we are interested in 
preserving Medicare. We are interested in addressing, forthrightly and 
immediately, the problem of the Medicare trust fund going bankrupt, 
as projected by the Medicare trustees and by the American Academy of 
Actuaries.

  For the 37 million Americans, older Americans and disabled Americans 
who rely on Medicare, exploiting Medicare as a campaign issue is, in my 
mind, well, it is a very cynical thing to do. We ought to get about our 
business in the 44-some-odd legislative days remaining in this session 
of Congress, the 104th meeting of Congress in our Nation's history, 
with a plan to protect Medicare from bankruptcy.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for joining me tonight. I challenge him 
and all my Democratic colleagues to join us in doing the right thing.
  Now, speaking of cynicism, I want to take a moment more because I 
think it is a logical segue of sorts. We have been talking about some 
of the facts behind the so-called mediscare campaign that has been 
waged by the National Democratic Party against our plans to preserve 
Medicare from bankruptcy, and that is part of what I believe will be 
viewed ultimately as a legacy of cynicism left behind by President 
Clinton when he leaves office.
  For the past 4 years the American people have witnessed President 
Clinton say one thing, then turn around and do something completely 
different, beginning of course with his promise to cut middle class 
taxes, which he made the centerpiece of his economic plan in the 1992 
campaign called ``Putting People First.''
  At first these promises might have been attributed to inexperience, a 
new President getting started in office. They were certainly fodder for 
a lot of jokes around Washington. But over time the President's utter 
failure to be true to his word on anything has worn very thin.
  Just last week the President held a news conference and said, with a 
straight face, ``The main point is that we are not yet in an election, 
at least we shouldn't be.'' Yet as he spoke his political party, the 
National Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee I guess is 
actually what it is called, they were airing an advertisement that 
reeks of electioneering at its worse.
  In fact the Democratic National Committee attack ad against Senator 
Dole is a phony attack, not supported by the facts whatsoever.
  In fact, one media commentator, Brooks Jackson of CNN, went so far as 
to call these television advertising spots false advertising. He 
described the Democratic strategy as one, ``not to let the facts get in 
the way of pro-Clinton political spin.'' That was on CNN's Inside 
Politics show on April 4.

  So the President is continuing with mediscare, with these Democratic 
National Committee ads, a very cynical approach to this year's election 
which overlooks one fact: The American people are a lot smarter than he 
or his party give them credit for, and they will not be fooled by 
deceptive advertising that distorts his opponents' records.
  Now, let us do a quick reality check. I know the Democrats supposedly 
have their truth squad, or whatever it is called, instant response, but 
here is what the Democratic National Committee ad currently airing 
around the country says. The announcer said:

       The facts? The President proposes a balanced budget 
     protecting Medicare, education, the environment. But Dole is 
     voting no. Well, here is the reality behind that claim. 
     President Clinton has never proposed a detailed budget plan. 
     He never proposed a plan until he was forced to do so by the 
     new Republican majority in Congress.

  Senator Dole of course voted ``yes'' for the first balanced budget 
plan in 26 years, the first balanced budget proposal put forward by a 
Congress in 26 years, and as we all know, the President vetoed that 
legislation.
  As I just mentioned a moment ago, and as my good friend the gentleman 
from Georgia mentioned, the President's so-called balanced budget plan 
is backloaded. Most of the spending cuts, which occur in one-third of 
the Federal budget, which is discretionary spending, occur in years 5 
and 6, after the President would be out of office, assuming that we 
wins reelection. And of course, as the American Academy of Actuaries 
has told us, the President's plan does not protect Medicare from 
bankruptcy. Again, they describe it as accounting tricks and quick 
fixes such as those that have been enacted in the past.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I would also like to join in this. The President's 
budget calls for 14 new Federal Government programs. What a way to end 
the era of big Government. He also has a tax increase in his budget 
that is only there until the year 2000. Again, conveniently, if the 
President were reelected, right when he gets out the tax cut, which he 
has $129 billion in tax cuts, I

[[Page H5048]]

guess for the wealthy also, our colleague from the other side of the 
aisle did not define wealthy a minute ago, but the President calls for 
tax cuts, and then only temporarily. Once he gets out of office, the 
taxes go back up.

  And I would tell the gentleman that 15,800 new Federal employees are 
added to the rolls under the President and 451 to the Department of 
Labor. For the Secretary of Labor alone, 83 new positions. That is not 
ending the era of big government.
  There is a spending increase on 75 different programs, including a 
248 percent increase for the EPA, 277 percent of the community 
development group, 66 percent for bilingual education, which, to me, 
that is a State issue not a Federal issue, but a 66 percent increase on 
it.
  This is a budget, as the gentleman and I have both pointed out, where 
all the savings are on the back end. It is a phony election year 
budget, and it is right on the wake where the President actually, on 
May 8, called for a 90-day freeze on politics. Right when he was doing 
an $11 million fund raiser, incidentally.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentleman's points. They are so well made 
and taken. He mentioned the President's proposed tax cut. In these 
nationwide television ads run by the Democratic National Committee, the 
ad goes on to say the President cuts taxes for 40 million Americans, 
Dole votes ``no.''
  Well, any observer of Washington these last 17 months knows that 
President Clinton never proposed cutting taxes until Republicans won 
control of Congress. To the contrary, in 1993, President Clinton, who, 
as a candidate, promised a middle class tax cut, raised taxes $258 
billion, the largest tax increase in history, which impacted every 
American household or some 260 million Americans.
  As we know now, that tax increase, the 1993 Clinton Democratic tax 
increase, and I say Clinton Democratic because not a single Republican 
in the House or the other body voted in support of that Clinton tax and 
budget plan, but that Clinton Democratic tax increase included the 4.3-
cent-per-gallon gas tax that we will repeal on this House floor next 
week, in time to give American motorists a little tax relief before 
Memorial Day.
  It also included the increase on Social Security benefits. And if we 
were really interested in demagogueing, we would probably be coming 
down to this well every day and night reminding our fellow Americans 
that the President and congressional Democrats increased taxes by $258 
billion, including a gas tax increase, including a Social Security tax 
increase.

  In fact, now the President admits that he raised them, referring to 
the taxes, too much. That is what he said in Houston on October 17 of 
last year to a gathering of prominent donors. And as the gentleman from 
Georgia pointed out just a moment ago, his new budget increases taxes 
by more than $60 billion, according to the Senate Committee on the 
Budget.
  We all know Senator Dole voted yes on tax cuts for working families 
and for economic growth, and that, ultimately, the President vetoed 
those tax cuts.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield. Here we have a President 
who in 1992 did run on a middle-class tax cut. In fact, one of his ads 
said, ``Hi, I am Bill Clinton, I believe you deserve a change, that is 
why I have a plan to get the economy moving again, starting with a 
middle-class tax cut.'' And that ad ran from New Jersey to Iowa.
  Then, of course, when the middle-class tax cut package that Dole 
supported and worked to get out of the Senate, when it got to the White 
House Oval Office it was vetoed.
  Medicare. The President says let us save Medicare. Well, on a 
bipartisan basis we worked very hard to try to save, protect, and 
preserve Medicare. Bob Dole worked for it. When it got to Bill 
Clinton's desk, it was vetoed.
  On welfare reform the President promised to end welfare as we know 
it. Now, he may have promised to extend welfare as we know it. We were 
not sure. As we look back, that is exactly what has happened. But let 
us say he did say end welfare as we know it. We had a bipartisan 
welfare bill that just passed the Senate 87 to 12.
  I mean the Senate has been his biggest ally. Frankly, Republicans and 
Democrats alike in many respects. President Clinton has worked with the 
liberals over there to twist the system and throw a monkey wrench in 
the process and so forth, but Senator Dole worked very hard to get this 
major reform out, and got it out and it was vetoed again, even in 
bipartisan fashion.
  Product liability reform, something that American businesses need to 
keep their competitive edge internationally up. So important these days 
with NAFTA and GATT and so forth. Passed the Senate in a bipartisan 
fashion. Senator Dole worked for it, President Clinton vetoed it.
  And the balanced budget. Passed the House, bipartisan fashion. Passed 
the Senate. Senator Dole worked very hard to get it out of the Senate. 
Got to the White House and it was vetoed. Dead on arrival.

                              {time}  2330

  So a major difference, between Bob Dole tax relief, Bob Dole saving 
Medicare, Bob Dole reforming welfare, Bob Dole balancing the budget, 
Bill Clinton vetoing tax relief, Bill Clinton vetoing Medicare reform, 
Bill Clinton vetoing welfare reform, Bill Clinton vetoing a balanced 
budget. You have a very clear choice.
  It is interesting that people say to us, why are you not getting the 
word out? I tell you one thing, a clue came out the other day: 92 
percent of the press admitted to voting for Bill Clinton in 1992.
  Mr. RIGGS. That is the Washington-based press corps.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I could not report objectively on, let us say, my son 
or daughter if they were in elected office. I went to a school play 
this weekend. My daughter had a small role in it. I loved it. I tell 
you what, that was the most important role in the play. But all the 
other parents probably thought their child's role was just as 
important.
  That is the relationship that you have with the press and the liberal 
Washington status quo community. It is not an arms's length objective 
relationship. The press has totally lost credibility because they are 
so cozy with the liberal Democrats, and they are doing everything they 
can to keep Bill Clinton in office because they do not want to change 
the status quo.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, of course that press 
bias, which was so clearly pronounced in that survey released the other 
day, has been reinforced by these Democrat National Committee ads and 
by the big labor union bosses who have also been spending millions and 
millions of dollars in the mediscare campaign.
  The gentleman from Georgia mentioned welfare reform. That is the 
other claim made in the Democrat National Committee television ads. The 
ad concludes by saying, President Clinton demands work for welfare, 
while protecting kids; Dole says no to the Clinton plans.
  Well, President Clinton, Mr. Speaker, has never submitted a serious 
welfare proposal to the Congress. The one he submitted, in 1994, 
exempted half of American adults on welfare from work, the work 
requirements for able-bodied welfare recipients, in exchange for their 
welfare benefits. And the President himself later agreed with well 
known national columnist Ben Wattenberg that his welfare proposal had 
been ``soft and weak.'' That was the quote that Ben Wattenberg 
attributed to President Clinton.

  President Clinton, as the gentleman from Georgia points out, vetoed 
bipartisan welfare reform not once but twice and now he is threatening 
to veto a plan endorsed by all 50 of the Nation's Governors. Unanimity, 
that is truly remarkable for this town. You have all 50 of the Nation's 
Governors, big State, little State, Republican and Democrat alike, all 
endorsing welfare reforms. And now the President is saying that he is 
going to veto that plan.
  Senator Dole said yes to genuine welfare reform. As the gentleman 
from Georgia points out, President Clinton, who as candidate Clinton in 
1992 promised to end welfare as we know it, President Clinton said no. 
I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his comments.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If you think about it, how many people do you know in 
your district in California have been

[[Page H5049]]

able to provide for their family based on a 20-hour work week. I would 
be willing to bet zero. I asked this question of an audience in Georgia 
recently: How many of you pay for your kids, your house with 20 hours 
work a week? Nobody.
  Yet the President vetoed welfare reform because we required in the 
bill 20 hours worth of work each week for able-bodied recipients, 20 
hours. That is all. But it was too much for the President. No tough 
love here. Veto, giveaway, giveaway, giveaway. That is all he seems to 
want to protect is the status quo giveaway system. We think he should 
have some tough love out there. Give a helping hand to those who need 
it. Give a little push, a living push to those who need that. But it is 
not fair to America's middle class to be shouldering the burden for 
those who could be working and contributing.
  Mr. RIGGS. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I know that the 
time for our special order is concluded.
  I would end by noting that as President, Bob Dole will sign a 
balanced budget which will allow Americans to earn more and keep more 
of what they earn so that they can do more for themselves, for their 
families, for their communities and for their churches. That is, again, 
one of the distinct differences between the two political parties.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for his participation in 
this special order. I want to thank the speaker and our wonderful House 
staff.

                          ____________________