[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 97 (Monday, July 12, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H5338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     PRESIDENT'S MEDICARE PROPOSAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, when the President said he 
was going to announce the program to expand Medicare coverage in some 
areas and to undo some of the negative effects of the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997 using some of the additional revenues that have become 
available, I was ready to cheer unreservedly. I now cheer reservedly. I 
would give the President between 1\1/2\ and 2 cheers out of a possible 
3.
  The President's program is clearly better in all respects than 
anything we will get from the majority party in the House or from any 
of its presidential candidates. So I am glad that the President has 
moved forward. But he has not moved forward enough.
  First of all, we have to be more forthright in admitting error. Now I 
acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, this is an error which it is easier for me to 
admit since I did not participate in its committal. I am talking about 
the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
  Congress was very proud of the Balanced Budget Act, which cut 
Medicare to pay for capital gains tax cut and also put limits on other 
government spending which virtually everyone in the House admits are 
unrealistic, but admits this privately only.
  What we did in 1997 was to cut Medicare indubitably. I am struck by 
the number of my colleagues who now acknowledge that Medicare was cut 
too deeply, although I am surprised by the number of them who appear 
not to have been in the room when it was done.
  As I read, people talk about how the 1997 budget cuts now turn out 
unfairly to have cut Medicare. I believe that I am seeing an 
interesting phenomenon. I cannot remember a time in history when so 
many people have disclaimed responsibility for the entirely foreseeable 
consequences of their own actions.
  The President acknowledges, having signed that bill, that there was 
error, but insufficiently. He is prepared to undo some of the harm of 
the 1997 Budget Act, but not enough. He wants to, in fact, impose some 
cuts in the period after 2002 when it would have ended.
  The President cuts hospital still too much. We should remember, when 
we are talking about reimbursement to hospitals, we are not talking 
about the income of wealthy physicians, although physicians have a 
right to be concerned about their income. We are talking about cutting 
funds that go to pay some of the hardest working people in this society 
who get little money for tough jobs.
  The people who staff hospitals include many people who work 7 days a 
week, 24 hours a day in unpleasant ways, cleaning and cooking and 
preparing patients. They are underpaid as a whole and ought to be paid 
more. We should, in fact, increase substantially over what the 
President proposes what we do to reimburse hospitals.
  The notion that the wealthiest society in the history of the world in 
the midst of a booming economy cannot afford adequately to compensate 
people who provide us health care is simply wrong. That same 
unwillingness to provide sufficient funds becomes apparent in the 
President's drug bill.
  I give him credit for proposing that we begin to cover prescription 
drugs for some degree for lower income people and others on Medicare. 
But he does not, again, do enough. For example, the plan says at 2008, 
after it is fully implemented, the Federal Government will pay up to 
half of $5,000 a year in prescription drugs.
  Now, understand that the language supporting the bill says that will 
cover 90 percent to the people at that time. In other words, 10 percent 
of the people will still not get 50 percent coverage. Others, of 
course, will get 50 percent. But 50 percent coverage, if one is living 
on $22,000 or $23,000 a year, and one has got to pay $520 a year in 
premiums, and then one has got to pay another $2,500 for one's half 
share of the $5,000, that is pretty significant. That is $3,000 for 
drug coverage out of one's $22,000 or $23,000. But even that, 
inadequate in and of itself, takes too long to become real.
  The President proposes that we start by only reimbursing people up to 
$2,000 in drugs, and we reimburse for only half. So in the first year, 
if one is paying $3,000 or $4,000 a year for one's drugs, which is not 
unusual among older people with various ailments, the Federal 
Government will help one to the extent of only $1,000 to that minus the 
$288 one has to have paid in premiums in that first year.
  Why phase this in to $5,000? If the $5,000 is the reasonable figure, 
why do we not get to it right away? Sometimes one has to phase things 
in because they are complicated. One has to make sure one gets them 
worked out.
  But paying for half of $2,000 is not simpler than paying for half of 
$5,000. We are talking here about a purely numerical calculation. There 
was no justification whatsoever either, in my judgment, for the fact 
that it is too low or for the fact that it takes so long to reach that 
number unless we want to cut taxes by $800 billion or $900 billion.
  It is true, if one begrudges public spending even for important 
purposes such as helping older people pay for their medications, then 
one cannot afford this. But the President correctly repudiates the 
Republican effort to cut $800 billion or $900 billion. The President 
understands that that would be excessive. He should follow through on 
his understanding.
  Inadequately compensating hospitals is not in the interest of this 
country. Refusing to acknowledge the error that this Congress and this 
President made in 1997, the Balanced Budget Act, is a mistake, and 
having too small a prescription drug program ill-suits a country of our 
wealth.

                          ____________________