[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H5924]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND SOLVENCY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the congressional Republicans today began 
once again to distort the issues surrounding the Medicare trustees' 
report, basically in order to attempt to justify their extreme and 
damaging cuts in the Medicare program. It is the same thing they did 
last year. If you think about over the last 18 months, the 
congressional Republicans have refused to cooperate with President 
Clinton and congressional Democrats to make responsible adjustments to 
Medicare and extend the solvency of the trust fund. In fact, if you 
look at the votes over the last 18 months, congressional Republicans 
have repeatedly voted for deep cuts in the Medicare program in order to 
pay for their massive tax cuts for the wealthy and against bipartisan 
reforms that would extend the solvency of the trust fund.
  I just wanted to point out some of the key votes on this issue 
because once again we heard today that there was no effort by the 
President or by the Democrats to solve the problem with the trust fund. 
The President actually stated today, mentioned on several occasions 
when there were votes in this House to try to deal with the solvency 
issue, and he actually asked the congressional Republicans, the 
Republican leadership, to come out and support similar type proposals 
once again before the end of this Congress.
  Back in May of 1995, about a year ago, the House Republicans brought 
up their budget resolution for the fiscal year, and that vote basically 
provided $288 million in Medicare cuts to pay for $345 billion in tax 
cuts targeted to the wealthy. This was the first major time when we saw 
the Republican leadership move on these massive cuts in Medicare and 
propose major changes that I think negatively impact the Medicare 
program.
  Now, the Medicare cuts in that first budget resolution, the one that 
they passed last year, were more than 3 times larger than the $90 
billion in Medicare cuts that the trustees stated were necessary to 
extend the solvency of the trust fund through 2006; in other words, 
another 10 years. According to the Treasury Department, 52 percent of 
the tax cuts in that proposal went to the top 12 percent of American 
households, those making over $100,000, and it not only made these cuts 
that basically was transferring money to wealthy Americans, but it also 
undermined the current Medicare program. Among other things, the deep 
GOP cuts would have doubled the monthly Medicare part B premium paid by 
all Medicare beneficiaries, drastically reduce the reimbursement paid 
to providers under the Medicare program, which would result in 
hospitals closing and also, I believe, jeopardize the general quality 
of health care available to seniors.

  Now, some have said, well, what was the Democrats' alternative? Well, 
in October 1995 the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], a Democrat 
who is the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, brought 
up a vote on exactly or proposed an amendment on exactly the $90 
billion in Medicare reforms; in other words, the level of cuts that the 
Medicare trustees said was necessary to make sure the program remains 
solvent into the next century.
  Well, 233 House Republicans voted against the Gibbons substitute, 
again a strong indication of the fact that they were not really 
interested in dealing with the solvency issue but wanted to make the 
larger cuts that would have primarily been for tax breaks for the 
wealthy and the substantive changes in the Medicare program.
  We had other votes. We had a vote on October 19 also. This was a 
motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] to 
recommit the budget or to recommit the GOP Medicare Revisions Act and 
basically would have removed the increase in the monthly part B premium 
paid by all Medicare beneficiaries. So once again Republicans on 
record, in this case 233 Republicans who said that it was okay to 
significantly increase part B premiums for every Medicare beneficiary 
who opted for the part B program, which pays for doctor bills.
  Now, this year we see the same thing happening again. On May 18, just 
really a few weeks ago, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], who is 
the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget, he brought up the 
Clinton budget, the President's budget that essentially contained $116 
billion in Medicare reforms and would have again solved the solvency 
problem and extended the Medicare program and kept it solvent into the 
next century. This was again something that was 225 House Republicans 
voted against.
  So when someone says to me, what are the Democrats doing, what is the 
President doing to try to deal with the solvency problems, those votes 
have come up, the President's budget came to the floor, and once again 
the Republicans voted it down.
  Instead what we got on May 18 was the new Republican budget 
resolution for the next fiscal year. Again the same thing again. It 
called for $168 billion in cuts in the Medicare program, too much 
unless you want to use it for tax breaks for the wealthy.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. In view of the preceding remarks, do the rules of the 
House require that speakers tell the truth during the course of their 
remarks?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a valid parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the Chair. However, I find it a valid point.

                          ____________________