[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 2452]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       INTRODUCTION OF THE MEDICARE FUNDING WARNING RESPONSE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. STENY H. HOYER

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, February 25, 2008

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Medicare Funding 
Warning Response Act of 2008 at the request of the President pursuant 
to section 803(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and 
Modernization Act of 2003 which requires me to do so.
  The Secretary of Health and Human Services submitted this proposed 
legislation to the House of Representatives on February 15, 2008.
  The Medicare Modernization Act established a process requiring the 
President to propose and Congress to consider a legislative response to 
a Medicare funding warning. A Medicare funding warning is triggered if 
the Medicare Board of Trustees makes a determination in 2 consecutive 
years that general revenue Medicare funding is expected to exceed 45 
percent of Medicare outlays for the current fiscal year or any of the 
next 6 fiscal years.
  The trustees issued a Medicare funding warning in April 2007. Under 
the statute, the President is required to submit a legislative proposal 
to Congress that will lower the ratio to the 45 percent level. The 
statute further requires the Majority and Minority Leader or their 
designees to introduce the legislation submitted by the President. Thus 
today, I am fulfilling my statutory obligation by introducing this 
legislation.
  Let me stress that introducing a bill ``by request'' should not be 
interpreted to imply endorsement of the legislation as submitted. As I 
mentioned, this introduction by me is required, it is not 
discretionary. Furthermore, let me be clear: While some of the items in 
the proposal deserve consideration, the proposal includes provisions 
that I oppose. For example, I have consistently voted against medical 
malpractice proposals similar to the proposal included in this package.
  I have strong reservations about the basic approach of the trigger. 
The trigger establishes an arbitrary limit on general revenues that 
does not provide a meaningful measure of Medicare's fiscal health and 
would take some legitimate options for strengthening Medicare financing 
off the table. The focus on general revenue spending inherently favors 
some options over others.
  Ironically, this process was included in the Medicare prescription 
drug legislation enacted by the then-Republican Majority and signed by 
President Bush--legislation that increased the liabilities of the 
Medicare program by $8.5 trillion. In fact, we would not have exceeded 
the 45 percent threshold but for the prescription drug benefit financed 
by general revenues.
  In sharp contrast, the Democratic Majority in this House is committed 
to ensuring that the Medicare program continues to function effectively 
for beneficiaries, providers and taxpayers well into the future. 
Remember, the House enacted reforms to strengthen Medicare as part of 
the Children's Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act of 2007. The 
CHAMP Act would have extended Medicare solvency by 2 years. The savings 
from reforming spending on Medicare Advantage plans in the CHAMP Act 
would have met the requirements of the trigger.
  Let me say that it is imperative that we get serious about our long-
term fiscal challenges. Analysts of diverse ideological perspectives 
and nonpartisan officials at the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, and 
the Government Accountability Office, GAO, have all warned that current 
fiscal policy is unsustainable over the long term even under the most 
optimistic projections. Medicare and Medicaid will grow by nearly five 
times as a share of the economy by 2050 under current projections if 
the growth of health care costs does not slow. And these programs will 
absorb as much of our Nation's economy by the late 2040s as the entire 
Federal budget does today.
  Turning a blind eye to our long-term challenges would not only be 
irresponsible, it would be dangerous to our Nation's continued success. 
Those of us who believe that the American people want their government 
to invest in national security, health care, education, infrastructure, 
scientific research and other priorities have a critical stake in 
addressing the budgetary pressures that will be created by the growth 
of entitlement spending.
  Finding a politically viable, equitable and financially sound 
solution to our fiscal challenges and meeting our responsibility to 
future generations will require bipartisan discussions in which all 
options must be on the table. Unfortunately, the Medicare trigger is 
ill-suited to such a process. Further, I am very skeptical that we can 
deal with the issue of entitlements in a bipartisan manner in the 
current environment, especially since the current administration has 
made it clear that it is not willing to discuss all options.
  I believe it is critical that we begin to lay the foundation for 
bipartisan action on this issue in the next Congress. I am encouraged 
that efforts to establish a bipartisan task force with a broad mandate 
to address our fiscal challenges have been initiated. I believe this 
issue will be one of the most important that the next Congress and the 
administration must address.
  We must have an open, honest debate about the best way to strengthen 
our entitlement programs that millions of Americans count upon.

                          ____________________