Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, how many times have we heard President Clinton claim that he is for small business? Yet he vetoed the Balanced Budget Act. The fact is our balanced budget contained real incentives to help small businesses and to promote economic growth. It increased the health insurance deduction for the self-employed to promote private health-care coverage. It provided estate tax relief to ensure that family-owned businesses will not be forced out of business simply because they cannot pay their estate taxes. It allowed small businesses to expense a greater amount of equipment purchases, thus making additional capital available for business expansion. It cut the capital gains tax rate to allow small businesses to keep more of what they earn to expand and create new jobs. Mr. Speaker, small businesses employ over half of the entire work force and create the vast majority of new jobs. Relieving the tax burden on America's small businesses and encouraging economic growth is not a give-away for the wealthy and the special interests. If President Clinton truly supports small business, he would have signed our balanced budget. Small business is not a special interest in America. Small business is America.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, there is life outside the Congress. I rise today to recognize the achievements of Linganore High School-- the Lancers--and its three 1995 State championships. This fall, the Linganore girls cross-country team and team member Kristen Ritter won the State Division 2-A team and individual State championships. Most recently, Linganore's football team won its third State championship in Division 2-A. It last won the championship in 1991. The Lancers' first State football championship was earned in Division 3-A in 1989. I am very proud that a member of my staff, Jeff Jones, started as the middle-linebacker on that first championship team. First year Linganore head football coach Bill McIntosh deserves a lot of credit for nurturing these fine young men into a winning team. The 1995 State championships were a great and difficult goal. The Lancers set their sights on achieving that goal. Then they went out and made it happen--three times so far this year. May the example of the 1995 Maryland State Champion Linganore High School girls cross-country team, Kristen Ritter, and the football team inspire those of us in Congress to achieve our goal of a balanced budget in 7 years.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] leading this effort, it is patently ridiculous to assert that this vote could be construed as a statement for nonsupport for our troops. Please do not use this argument. With Mr. Dornan leading this debate, there is no way our intentions could be misunderstood.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, relevant to the President vetoing the only balanced budget in a generation for reasons that do not hold water Americans should note an editorial entitled ``Cheap Shot'' in yesterday's Washington Post. Senator Minority Leader Tom Daschle has recklessly attacked--without foundation and for the cheapest of political reasons--one of the most valuable institutions in the government. His problem is with the Congressional Budget Office. It was set up in 1974 to fill a void by providing Congress with dispassionate, nonpartisan analysis on which to base budget decisions. It has steadily done so . . . and in the process greatly strengthened Congress as an institution while elevating the annual debate. Maybe someday it will fall from that high standard. That day is not yet. But Mr. Daschle is disappointed by one of CBO's current positions . . . he is free, of course, to say he disagrees . . . what he chose to do instead . . . was smear the agency. The remarks he made undercut the very process whose integrity he pretended to protect. They did leave a stain, but not on CBO.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, more than 2\1/2\ weeks ago President Clinton signed the following commitment into law. This is the text, so there is no confusion. I quote. ``The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the first session of the 104th Congress,'' that is 1995, ``to achieve a balanced budget no later than fiscal year 2002, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office; and the President and the Congress agree that the balanced budget must protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, and provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the environment. Further, the balanced budget shall adopt tax policies to help working families and to stimulate future economic growth.'' The Congress did this long ago. The President says he does not like the Republican balanced budget plan. That is fine, but where is the President's alternative 7-year budget plan with CBO numbers? Mr. Speaker, the President has made a commitment. The deadline is Friday. We are waiting.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, Americans want Congress and the President to balance the budget and they want a plan now, not next year. [[Page H 13942]] A public opinion survey of 7,200 registered voters show that when Americans are given the truth, they overwhelmingly favor the Republican proposal to balance the budget in 7 years. Eighty-six percent believe ``The President and Congress should deal with the budget issue now'' compared to 9 percent who feel the issue should be put off until after next year's election. Seventy-one percent believe that the President and Congress should submit a 7-year balanced budget scored by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Congress did this long ago. Mr. Speaker, the Congress and the American people are eager to see the President's plan to balance the budget in 7 years. How else can we negotiate? It's been 15 days since the President agreed to do this. The deadline is next Friday. Where's the President's 7 year balanced budget?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, Americans are asking Congress and the President to balance the budget. Allow me to share excerpts of a letter to the President sent to me by one of my constituents, Carol Ault, of Ellicott City, MD. The Democrats have spent 40 years getting this country in the financial mess it is in. The Republicans have started cleaning up the mess. And one of the first steps is to produce a balanced budget as soon as possible. And Mr. President, your statement on TV recently that your job is to ``take care of the American people'' is totally wrong. We do not want you and the U.S. government to take care of us. We want you to leave us alone to pursue our own economic interests. You do not know what is best for us. We know what is best for us. You do not know how best to spend our tax money. We know best how to spend our tax money. I am not sure if the following statement originated with Iococca, but I heard him say it: ``Either lead, follow, or get out of the way.'' Sir, you are not leading.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 821, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' DESIGNATION OF HON. BILL EMERSON TO ACT AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE TO SIGN

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise against sending troops to Bosnia without congressional approval and against requiring our military to wear U.N. insignia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, however, I am very disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make my amendment in order. Today, this House will vote on whether or not we send young American men and women as ground soldiers in Bosnia. While I do not believe the President has made a sufficient case for us to send our troops into harm's say, I do believe there is another side issue which needs to be addressed and that this bill is the proper vehicle. No doubt you have heard the story of our brave soldier, Army Specialist Michael New. Specialist New is an Army medic serving his country while stationed in Germany. He was recently told that his unit would be ordered to serve as part of the U.N. operation in Bosnia and would be required to wear blue berets and a U.N. insignia on their uniforms. As I am sure you are aware, Specialist New has refused to wear a U.N. uniform and is now awaiting court martial for disobeying an order. I fully understand that Specialist New will face the charges because he disobeyed an order. I do not mean to imply that soldiers should be free to disobey their commanders. But there is an overriding issue: Specialist New believes this order was unlawful. Specialist New as well as a large number of Members of this body believe that our young men and women who serve our country take an oath to honor and defend the Constitution of the United States. They do not take an oath to defend the Charter of the United Nations, and they believe that when they wear the insignia of the U.N. that they transfer their allegiance to the U.N. Charter. The amendment that I intend to offer today is of great importance and is very timely. If this House is going to debate whether to send troops to Bosnia, we must raise the issue of whether U.S. troops should be required to wear a uniform that signifies allegiance to the United Nations. My amendment is very simple. It would not have prevented the U.S. military from participating in U.N. activities but it would have prohibited the requirement of the Armed Forces to wear the uniform or any insignia of the United Nations. This amendment will in no way affect Specialist New's case because it only applies to the future wearing of such uniforms. The language of my amendment is identical to H.R. 2540 which was introduced by the House majority whip, Tom Delay. The timing of this issue could not be any more appropriate. Specialist New will be arraigned today for his court martial. This House should send the message that it will not tolerate our soldiers being given which may be unlawful orders. It is my sincere hope that this House will bring H.R. 2540 to the floor in the very near future.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, with all of the speculation about whether the President will sign or veto the Congress' plan to balance the budget in 7 years, we need to remember why we need to balance the budget. A child born today must pay $187,000 during her lifetime just to pay for the interest on the almost $5 trillion national debt. That is before paying for any government services--Social Security or Medicare for her parents and grandparents--or national defense for herself. We have to balance the budget for our children's future. We have spent over $5 trillion in Federal welfare programs since 1965 and Americans have concluded that the current welfare system perpetuates dependency and offers no hope for a better future. We have to reform welfare because it is what Franklin Delano Roosevelt described as ``a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.'' While American families sent 2 percent of their income in taxes to Washington in 1950--today they send almost one-quarter. That is why we must provide tax relief to families. Without reform, Medicare will be bankrupt in 7 years with no legal authority to pay hospital bills for seniors. These are the stakes. Americans sent us to Washington to fix these problems. I hope the President chooses to sign the only budget plan that will address these problems.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that most Americans are confused as to what the President wants in a Federal budget. The President has said that he wants, one, a plan that will balance the Federal budget in 7 years; two, a plan that will save Medicare from bankruptcy; three, a plan that will end welfare as we know it; and, four, a plan that will cut taxes for families and reduce the capital gains tax to spur job creation and economic growth. But the President has never presented a plan that would balance the budget and do these other things. The Congress has. However, the President has announced he intends to veto this plan that will balance the budget the House and Senate will shortly send to him. Mr. Speaker, I, for one, do not understand why the President would veto the only plan that will balance the Federal budget and accomplish the goals he says he supports which is also what the American people want. Why go through all of that trouble? What does the President really want, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, tonight is Halloween and Americans want to know if they will get a trick or treat from their President. The President has told Americans that he wants these four things in the Federal budget: No. 1, a plan that will balance the Federal budget in 7 years. No. 2, a plan that will save Medicare from bankruptcy. No. 3, a plan that will end welfare as we know it. No. 4, a plan that will cut taxes for families and reduce the capital gains tax to spur job creation and economic growth. Madam Speaker, the President has never presented such a plan. But the House and the Senate have passed and will shortly send to the President a budget reconciliation plan that will achieve all four of the President's goals. The question is: Will the President trick Americans and veto the only budget plan that will achieve his goals or will the President treat Americans and just sign the balanced budget? Madam Speaker, Americans want to know what their President will give them this Halloween, trick or treat.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare trustees have told us that Medicare is going bankrupt. Let me quote from their own words: ``We strongly recommend that the crisis presented by the financial condition of the Medicare trust funds be urgently addressed on a comprehensive basis.'' This is a quote from the Medicare trustees. Six of them, four of them appointed by President Clinton, three of them Cabinet-level positions. We believe that their recommendation should be followed, and we are doing that. We really need to address the Medicare crisis. Please join us in addressing that crisis. Please stop medagoguery. Please join in the discussion which is now just beginning. The passage of this bill today is just one of a number of steps in which this bill can be modified so that it becomes ever a better and better bill. Please join us in solving this problem for senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I think it is morally reprehensible to frighten senior citizens for political agendas.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, this week, this Thursday, the House of Representatives will vote on a plan that will save and preserve the Medicare program for the current generation of senior citizens by introducing choice and competition into this 30-year-old health insurance program for the elderly and disabled. [[Page H 10085]] Let me start by reviewing why these changes are necessary. Then I want to talk about some of these changes. The trustees of Medicare, four of them appointed by President Clinton, three of them Cabinet Secretaries, warned America in their April annual report that the Medicare part A trust fund that pays hospital bills will go bankrupt by 2002. Beginning next year, in 1996, for the first time in the history of Medicare, more money will be spent on senior's hospital bills then will come into the trust fund from the payroll taxes that are paid out of the wages of current workers. If we do nothing, seniors' out-of-pocket costs would continue to climb and Medicare would be bankrupt in 7 years. If we do nothing and Medicare goes bankrupt, the Government does not have the authority to pay for the hospital bills of any one senior, let alone the 37 million who now depend on it, and the millions more who will need it in the future. Clearly doing nothing was not a responsible or acceptable option. The problem will not go away--it will only get worse. Republicans stepped up to the challenge of saving Medicare because Medicare is a vital program that is too important for politics as usual. That is why we began in the spring and have continued throughout year to hold hearings here in Washington. In fact, between the House and the Senate there have been 50 hearings. More importantly, we have held meetings back at home with seniors, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, insurance companies, advocacy groups such as the American Association of Retired Persons--AARP. Based on what the people in western Maryland told me and what other members learned from their constituents, we developed the Medicare Preservation Act. The Medicare Preservation Act is based on two simple, but effective principles: First, choice for seniors, and second, competition among health care providers. Choice and competition always do two things in our free enterprise system: Lower costs, and improve quality. That is what the Medicare Preservation Act is about. That is what the Medicare Preservation Act will do. It will give seniors the right to choose the health care and health care insurance plan that best meets their needs, not the Government's. It will give seniors the choice between traditional Medicare or new options. If seniors do nothing, they will keep traditional Medicare. It will preserve seniors' right to keep their current doctor and hospital. I have two special concerns that the Medicare Preservation Act solves. Rural areas of America, such as western Maryland, will greatly benefit from the new option of provider service networks--or PSN's. Provider service networks are collaborative partnerships between hospitals and doctors that will compete against insurance companies. Provider service networks already exist in western Maryland, but they are hampered by unbelievable amounts of redtape. The unnecessary redtape is eliminated under the Medicare Preservation Act so that doctors and hospitals can concentrate on what they want to do and should do--take care of patients. That is why the Maryland State Medical Society supports the Medicare Preservation Act. Seniors know that fraud is a big problem in Medicare. The GAO estimates 10 percent or so. The Heritage Foundation estimates up to 20 percent of Medicare costs--that is up to $32 billion is estimated to be lost to waste, fraud or abuse each year. For instance, Mr. Charles Hardy of Cumberland, MD, found that Medicare was billed for services for his mother--after she died. The Medicare Preservation Act attacks waste, fraud, and abuse in two ways. First, it sets up a rebate program that will award people like Mr. Hardy with 10 percent of savings over $1,000. Mr. Hardy got no reward for being diligent. People like Mr. Hardy deserve a reward for taking the time and trouble to look for and report mistakes they find in Medicare bills. Health care providers need to be aware that people like Mr. Hardy are paying attention. Second, the new options for seniors that will be created by the Medicare Preservation Act means that doctors and hospitals, health management organizations, insurance companies, and provider service networks will have to compete for senior's business based on quality and price. The Medicare Preservation Act is a real, honest, practical, long term, solution that will save Medicare because it is based upon the two key advantages that we seniors have. We are smart because of the accumulated wisdom of our experience. We have the time to pick the plan that is right for us. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the Medicare Preservation Act.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that the spirit of this amendment is supported by many people on both sides of the aisle. That spirit is that we really need to look at these national labs because some of their missions have changed. We are in a post-cold-war era. That does not mean that we are in a really safe world. I am not sure this is the best way to approach that problem, but I wanted to take just a moment to focus on one of the things that our labs are doing which I think is very important for our future. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend my committee chairman, Mr. Walker, for this sensible approach to consolidating U.S. civilian science research and development programs into an omnibus bill. I believe that this approach elevates civilian science R&D and its contribution to our national security. It is a sound precedent for prioritizing national science programs. As we consider H.R. 2405 and our priorities in science policy, I urge my colleagues to reflect of the importance of these science programs. I am particularly interested in alternative energy research programs. Just as it is irresponsible to saddle our children with the national debt we have created, it is irresponsible for this Nation not to develop clean, safe alternative energy sources for future generations. Harnessing fusion power is the most challenging and ambitious scientific endeavor ever undertaken by man. Not only is fusion one of very few long-term energy options for the future but it is at the cutting edge of scientific research and technology. This country must not lose sight of the importance of scientific research, especially research that has such a tremendous payoff. Steady progress continues in demonstrating the scientific and technological feasibility of magnetic fusion power as a viable long- term energy supply system. I realize that all programs must be tailored to more closely meet today's budgetary constraints, and this bill does not responsibly. However with additional funding cuts we would forfeit our ability to develop a technology that holds great promise for our Nation's economic and environmental future. I thank my colleagues on the Science Committee for their attention to alternative energy research and urge support for the civilian science programs in H.R. 2405.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in a tribute to an American visionary and native Marylander, James W. Rouse. Today James Rouse is receiving our Nation's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Mr. Rouse is best known as the creator of shopping malls and Columbia, MD, the largest planned city in America. However, in addition, James Rouse has devoted his life to implementing a vision that has transformed and improved the lives of millions of Americans. Madam Speaker, many say that with developments such as the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, James Rouse is singularly responsible for saving American cities. His nonprofit Enterprise Foundation formed in 1981 helps low-income neighborhood groups in cities across America rebuild their housing. Mr. Rouse's words should inspire us all. ``A full life is not achieved through one's material well-being, but by dealing with the whole of life wherever one is. Circumstances have placed me in the life of the city. I see so many things that ought to be better.'' Congratulations, Mr. Rouse.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, a sharply-worded Cumberland Times editorial about U.S. Route 220 in western Maryland hit the highway nail right on the head; I quote: ``U.S. Route 220 North is arguable the most dangerous stretch of highway in the (tri-state) area . . . (its) S-curves make the road an obstacle course fraught with danger.'' In addition to highlighting the frightening hazards of 220's three-mile twist in Allegany County, the Times editorial rightfully noted the value of an improved Route 220 to the economic development of a region ripe with promise and perfect for business growth. The inclusion of Route 220 as a designated highway in our national roadway network will serve as the foundation upon which the region can build a better 220 and, consequently, a brighter tomorrow for all those dependent upon it. Before today, any substantial discussion in western Maryland about the overall economic development of the tri-state region was hindered by a lack of region-wide attention to--and funding for--Route 220. With this comprehensive bill and thanks to the effective leadership of Committee Chairman Bud Shuster and Maryland's State Highway Administration, we're seeing Route 220 get what it certainly deserves: a designated place in our national highway system. The measure before the House today appropriately includes the full stretches of Route 220--in Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia--as key highway links in the National Highway System. As a result, planned improvements for Route 220 will receive federal funding priority. In the long history of Route 220, this is good news . . . very good news. The improvement of Route 220 north of Cumberland is not only important to Maryland but also to our neighbors in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Route 220 continues into these states from Maryland. Maryland--under the impressive guidance of Transportation Secretary David Winstead, Highway Administrator Hal Kassoff and House Speaker Cas Taylor--has authorized funding for right-of-way acquisition. Construction targets for Maryland's section of the road are within reach. For Route 220 to realize its full potential, it is imperative-- as Speaker Taylor has consistently noted--that West Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania join forces to make Route 220 an asset to the region rather than a hurdle to development and safety. Improvements to Route 220 in any one of the three states must be matched by corresponding improvements to Route 220 in the others. I believe that this legislation is a terrific catalyst for such change, cooperation and progress. I look forward to the continuation of a Route 220 coalition dedicated to the completion of 220 improvements throughout the region. I will soon be meeting with my colleagues from West Virginia and Pennsylvania in an effort to lend whatever assistance we can to the project. At this juncture--and on behalf of those who share our interest in Route 220--I want to commend Chairman Shuster and urge the House to adopt the National Highway System language as detailed in the bill. The State of Maryland has advised me that more than 7,500 vehicles face the Route 220 minefield daily. That number is predicted to double by 2015. In the name of safety and for the benefit of the region, it is essential that we give Route 220 the attention it deserves and the backing it needs to become a reality rather than a roadblock to progress. I also want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri for his assistance in redesignating $440,000 in unused funds from Rt. 48 in Washington County for use in the I-70/I-270 interchange project as part of H.R. 2274. Frederick County is one of Maryland's fastest growing communities. Yet, the Frederick area is virtually the last place in America where major criss-crossing interstates lack complete, accessible and safe connecting interchanges and sufficient highway feeder networks. Construction of the I-70/I-270 interchange is one of the highest priorities in the state of Maryland. The release of this $440,000 will help accelerate the work on Phase I of this critical highway improvement project. This is one more step to ensure that Frederick County will remain an active force in the growth of the state's economy and that of the entire western Maryland region. I thank Chairman Shuster and the Speaker for this opportunity and yield back the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, as the debate proceeds on H.R. 2274, the National Highway System Designation Act, I want to register my views on several provisions that are of critical importance to the Nation as well as to my home State of Texas. The bill establishes priorities for our highway and transportation needs. It provides us with a mechanism to support infrastructure projects which have national significance. One such project which I commend the committee for including in the legislation would extend high-priority corridor 18 from where it currently ends in Houston, TX, to the Mexican border in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The Rio Grande Valley of south Texas is one of the main gateways for goods entering and exiting the United States to Mexico. Its two main north-south transportation arteries, U.S. Highways 281 and 77, are the two busiest highways going to and from our southern border. In fact, in 1993, these two highways handled approximately 4.7 million vehicles, a fourth of which were trucks. Rio Grande Valley highways service nine international border crossings which have a total of 30 lanes. In 1994, these nine ports of entry handled approximately 28.3 million crossings. The extension of high-priority corridor 18 into the Lower Rio Grande Valley will link together many of the major economic centers of our Nation with Canada and Mexico, providing us with a seamless trade corridor for the safe and efficient flow of goods. The extension of corridor 18 into south Texas ties in with planned infrastructure developments in Mexico. The entire United States will benefit from this linkage which will enhance economic development and international trade.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, a sharply worded Cumberland Times editorial about U.S. Route 220 in western Maryland hit the highway nail right on the head: I quote: ``U.S. Route 220 North is arguably the most dangerous stretch of highway in the (tristate) area * * * (its) s-curves make the road an obstacle course fraught with danger.'' In addition to highlighting the frightening hazards of 220's 3-mile twist in Alleghany County, the Times editorial rightfully noted the value of an improved Route 220 to the economic development of a region ripe with promise and perfect for business growth. The inclusion of Route 220 as a designated highway in our national roadway network will serve as the foundation upon which the region can build a better 220 and, consequently, a brighter tomorrow for all those dependent upon it. Before today, any substantial discussion in western Maryland about the overall economic development of the tristate region was hindered by a lack of regionwide attention to--and funding for--Route 220. With this comprehensive bill and thanks to the effective leadership of Committee Chairman Bud Shuster and Maryland's State Highway Administration, we're seeing Route 220 get what it certainly deserves: a designated place in our National Highway System. The measure before the House today appropriately includes the full stretches of Route 220--in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia--as key highway links in the National Highway System. As a result, planned improvements for Route 220 will receive Federal funding priority. In the long history of Route 220, this is good news, very good news. The improvement of Route 220 north of Cumberland is not only important to Maryland but also to our neighbors in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Route 220 continues into these States from Maryland. Maryland--under the impressive guidance of Transportation Secretary David Winstead, Highway Administrator Hal Kassoff, and House Speaker Cas Taylor--has authorized funding for right-of-way acquisition. Construction targets for Maryland's section of the road are within reach. For Route 220 to realize its full potential, it is imperative-- as Speaker Taylor as consistently noted--that West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania join forces to make Route 220 an asset to the region rather than a hurdle to development and safety. Improvements to Route 220 in any one of the three States must be matched by corresponding improvements to Route 220 in the others. I believe that this legislation is a terrific catalyst for such change, cooperation, and progress. I look forward to the continuation of a Route 220 coalition dedicated to the completion of 220 improvements throughout the tristate region. I will soon be meeting with my colleagues from West Virginia and Pennsylvania in an effort to lend whatever assistance we can to the project. At this juncture--and on behalf of those who share our interest in Route 220--I want to commend Chairman Shuster and urge the House to adopt the National Highway System language as detailed in the bill. The State of Maryland has advised me that more than 7,500 vehicles face the Route 220 minefield daily. That number is predicted to double by 2015. In the name of safety and for the benefit of the region, it is essential that we give Route 220 the attention it deserves and the backing it needs to become a reality rather than a roadblock to progress. I also want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri for his assistance in redesignating $440,000 in unused funds from Route 48 in Washington County for use in the I-70/I-270 interchange project, another very important project in our district, as part of H.R. 2274. Frederick County is one of Maryland's fastest growing communities. Yet, the Frederick [[Page H 9271]] area is virtually the last place in America where major criss-crossing interstates lack complete, accessible, and safe connecting interchanges and sufficient highway feeder networks. Construction of the I-70/I-270 interchange is one of the highest priorities in the State of Maryland. The release of this $440,000 will help accelerate the work on phase I of this critical highway improvement project. This is one more step to ensure that Frederick County can remain an active force in the growth of the State's economy and that of the entire western Maryland region.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Well, as the gentleman knows, it should not be a partisan issue. It is everybody's problem. It is my mother's problem. I am 69 years old, it is going to be my problem. But more important than that, it is my children's problem and my grandchildren's problem. Because what we are going to do if we do not do something responsible now is to require them to take care of our health care, and that just is not fair. They are going to have their own problems in spades. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, this demographic shift, which is all the baby boomers coming on board; if we think we have problems now with Medicare, just look down the road at where we are going to be when the baby boomers come on board. So we really need to be responsible now and to solve the problem now so that we can build the foundation so that we can solve the bigger problem that we are going to have when the baby boomers start coming on board. Then it is not going to be two-to-one, it is going to be a ratio of less than two- to-one. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get back for a moment to nail down this budget thing. This has nothing to do with the budget. When you hear someone say that Republicans are cutting Medicare, the first untruth is we are not cutting Medicare. It is now $4,800 per recipient per year. That is going to go up 40 percent or so to $6,700 per recipient, and nobody's math is going to consider $4,800 to $6,700 a cut. So that is the first problem with the statement. But they go on to say that Republicans are cutting Medicare, which is not true, so that they can give a tax break to the rich. That is silly. That is like the gentleman from Ohio saying that if your neighbor would stop having such expensive vacations, you could buy a new car. Mr. Speaker, our problems with balancing the budget have absolutely nothing to do with Medicare. It has its own trust fund. There is a problem there. We have to solve the problem. Again, I would just implore those at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and on the other side of the aisle here to please join us. What they are promoting is Medicare. They are trying to frighten our senior citizens. That is not fair, that is not right. We have a problem and they can do productive if they join us in trying to solve that problem. We have been engaged now over the break and for more than a month, and in our office for much more than a month, in a continuing dialog with the American people. They now know that there is a problem, they know that they must be a part of the solution to this problem, and when they look at it honestly and face it fairly, you know, they have faced bigger problems in their lives, and if they are business people, they face bigger problems in their business. I do not find our senior citizens frightened that we cannot solve this problem. I see some of them confused because they are getting different information. So let us just nail down the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with balancing the budget, it is a totally separate area, totally separate problem, and then we can go on to talk about what the problem is and what we can do about it.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. That is exactly right. This is not a Republican program. It was what, April 3, that the President's trustees, the ones he appointed--he appointed four of them. Three of them are Cabinet Members, and they are the ones that in their annual report point out that we have absolutely got to do something. Now all at once from the other side of the aisle and from many journalists this becomes a Republican problem. It is our problem, it is not a Republican problem, but it is a problem that Republicans are stepping up to, and it is a problem that those on the other side of the aisle have not been willing to step up to. They have been very willing to be the source of disseminating false information to the American people. We will have a chance to chat about that as we go on here.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. And four of them he appointed, and three are Cabinet Members; that is correct.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. That is for part A, and that is the one the trustees are talking about, that is the one that is in trouble, and that is the one that we are talking about that we must do something to strengthen it, and save it, and preserve it so it will be there for our children. By the way, I think in 23 out of the last 27 years we have increased the payroll deduction for Medicare, so it has gone up, and up, and up, and we obviously cannot continue to do that. By the way, if we doubled or tripled that withholding, Medicare is still in trouble. So we have got to do something beyond that. So the first point that we need to make is that Medicare is not related to the budget. It is off budget. Now I know that we have been taking the money from the Medicare trust fund. We take if from all trust funds. I do not agree that we ought to do that. I think we need to stop doing that. We need to enact legislation so that we can stop doing that because right now by law the surplus funds in these trust funds have to be invested in U.S. securities. So, it is the Congress' fault that these funds are not there. Every bin where there should be dollars, like the highway trust fund, and the Social Security trust fund, and the Medicare trust fund, and the list goes on and on for a large number of trust funds, in those bins where there should be money there are just IOU's, and the money is owed to the Government. But this is an accounting problem, and, as far as accounting is concerned, and I have a little graph here which shows the problem with the Medicare account, and what it says is that starting next year we will be spending more [[Page H 8952]] money than we are taking in. There is a surplus in the fund now, on paper. We have borrowed it, we need to give it back. But this still has nothing to do with balancing the budget, and, if we keep on going the way we are now, by 2002, maybe a little earlier, maybe a little later, because you cannot be really a perfect prophet in predicting what is going to happen economically in the future, but they said under all circumstances, any circumstance they could look at it, it was going to go bankrupt, and a good guess is about 2002, and you can see here it goes through the zero line in 2002, and that would be a catastrophe that we absolutely cannot afford to happen. So, it is very appropriate now that we step up, and, by the way, I would just like to encourage those that are on the other side of the aisle----

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I am happy to join the discussion of Medicare. I think to put this in perspective that one of the first things that we need to do is to chat for just a moment about how Medicare is related to balancing the budget. I notice a lot of columnists and a lot of Congressmen will directly or indirectly relate our problem with Medicare to balancing the budget. What we are talking about here and what the trustees were talking about is part A of Medicare. That has a trust fund just like Social Security. It really has nothing to do with the budget. We make the statement that, and it is a very correct statement, that if the budget were balanced today, we would still face exactly the same problems with most Social Security and with Medicare that we face now, and so this is not a problem which is related to balancing the budget. It is true that if the budget were balanced today that we still face a problem having to do something about Medicare or it is going to be bankrupt. Now I know that there are those who are saying that the Republicans are going to cut Medicare. That is not true, and we will come to that in a couple of moments. You need to go to school for some elementary math if you think the Republicans are cutting Medicare. Yes, sir; you had a comment?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. A majority of them at least are, yes.