Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. We will meet again and have a further discussion.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Martin, I am happy to chat for a little more with the American people about Medicare. Martin just mentioned a very significant thing, and that is when competition came in, prices came down. He was mentioning the optical and the eyeglasses and so forth. This is exactly the kind of thing that is going to happen in health care if we give it a chance. I want to mention before we quit, Martin, one other thing you brought up. You mentioned health care and you mentioned sick care. We euphemistically call what we have in this country a health care system. Most of it is a sick care system, is it not, if you think about it. What we need is the philosophy and kind of insurance that moves people to genuine health care. It is like a warranty on your car, but they do not care whether you put oil in it or not. I do not understand why the insurance companies would not insist that we have a physical every year, because that is kind of the equivalent of putting oil in your car, and they would detect problems. There are old adages like ``a stitch in time saves nine'' and ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' We seem to have forgotten all of those things in health care. By the way, sometimes when we have another opportunity, it would be very fruitful to talk about how we got here. How in the world did we ever get in a country which has been the envy of the world for our economic prowess, largely because we have a free market economy with competition, how did we ever get here, when we have essentially no competition with health care? Just to whet your appetite, the villain here is where the villain usually is when our country has problems, the Federal Government.

Mr. BARTLETT

Mr. BARTLETT. Absolutely. I would like to come back to the Medisave for just a moment. I had the privilege of being briefed by Pat Rooney from the Golden Rule Insurance Co., who first came up with this plan. He explained that on the basis of a person who was working for an employer, where the employer owned the policy, it is made available as a benefit to the employee. I do not think that is the best idea. I think if you owned it, then a lot of problems we now have like portability and preexisting conditions go away, and I think this is a great success. But that is an item for another discussion. But if you took a working family at that time, where the employer paid about $4,500 a year for their health care, and imagine if he took $1,500 of that and bought a catastrophic policy with a $3,000 deductible, he now took that $3,000 and put it in an account for the employee, the employee would, anytime they thought they needed health care, they could go get it. They would not have to ask if it was covered. There was no deductible other than this $3,000 deductible, and then they brought the receipt from that and they got the money. If at the end of the year they had not spent the $3,000, it was their's. But since it was before tax dollars, this is where the medical IRA comes from. Since it was before tax dollars, if they wanted to take it out, they would pay the usual 10-percent penalty. But they could roll it over into an IRA. It would not have to be for their retirement, it could be for their children's education, or for any purpose in the future. It has been estimated that making the consumer a careful shopper could save up to a third of health care costs. If you think about it, Martin, the only thing that we shop for in our society and never ask the price of is health care. You never ask the doctor, ``Doctor, you have ordered 10 tests for me. Do I really need those 10 tests?'' If your doctor were going to be perfectly honest with you, he would say ``No, Martin, you need 4, but I need 6 of them to protect me against malpractice.'' We need to solve his problem, and we have some good legislation that starts down that road. I am not sure it has gone quite far enough. We have started down the right road, anyway, and we are hoping to solve that problem. This would be an enormous incentive to be a good shopper, and there is a benefit for being a good shopper. Another area where I had one of our constituents who came to one of our open door sessions, who told about a Medicare billing for his mother for the 2 months after she was dead. These were just for drugs for her. But he is a very responsible citizen, Mr. Hardy from up in Allegany County, up in Maryland, and he went to the hospital to find out why that happened. Well, very few people do what Mr. Hardy did. He got it corrected, and there are three other nursing homes, four other nursing homes, that are now not using the billing service that that nursing home was using. So he really solved the problem. But very few of our people have his commitment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Those are great editorials, and I think that they are saying what most Americans, when they have had a chance to look at the facts and think about it, what they are saying, too. I think that it is perhaps well to look at what the problem is. We can divide our health care into four segments. They are not of equal size, as you will see, but they have very disparate percentages of increases per year. Medicaid I think is increasing at about 14, 15 percent a year. That is a government-run program. Medicare is increasing at about 10, 11 percent a year. That is a government-run program. If we go into the private sector, the major part of the private sector, the rate is increasing there about 4.5 percent a year. Now, that is too much, that is above the inflation level, that has got to be brought down. That is a whole lot better than it was a couple of years ago, and it is a whole lot better than 14 or 15 percent. It is a whole lot better than 10.5 or 11 percent. The fourth category I want to mention is a unique part of the private sector, and these are large corporations, large companies, that self- insure. Now, nobody is quarreling that the quality of health care has gone down in the private sector, that they have less than half the rate of increase per year as in these government-run programs. Nobody is quarreling that the quality of health care is down. It is not down in these big companies. And you know what their experience has been? Last year they had a decrease of 1.1 percent in health care costs. So this tells us what the potential is. The article from the Wall Street Journal, that was particularly illustrative, because it points out that what our program is aiming at is to bring competition to the marketplace. There is no competition in Medicaid, there is no competition in Medicare, there is some competition, we need more, but to the extent we have competition in the private sector, and even more in these large companies that can shop around, competition has done what it always does in a free economy. It has increased the quality and it has decreased the price. So the Wall Street Journal is exactly correct. The solution to the problem, I think, is providing senior citizens options so that they can choose. Now, two things about this that will make this more important for senior citizens than for other people: I think we are smarter than other people, because we have lived longer and we have more experience and we can trade on that experience. I do not have more time, but you know, many senior citizens are retired and they have time. I can remember when I was in the workplace and this open season came once a year and we could change to another policy, I did not have an opportunity to look at those and study them. If I was reasonably happy with the one I was in, I stayed there. But this is not the case for senior citizens. They are very bright people, they have time, they will study, they will make great choices that are to their benefit. What that is going to require is competition in the marketplace, because we hope we are going to make available to them a wide menu, a wide menu of plans that they can choose from. They can stay right in Medicare, by the way, if they want to. Nobody has to leave if they are happy with where they are; They can stay there. But I think many people, most of the people, will opt to go to one of the other plans which will better fit their peculiar or personal or family situation. What this is going to do is to make for competition. It is going to do for Medicare exactly what it has done in the private sector and what it has done for these large companies, and the cost of health care is going to come down. Now, it does not even need to come down to 4.5 percent in Medicare, what is it, 6.5 percent or something, if we bring it down only that much, we are okay. I think we are kind of pessimistic. I think the senior citizens are smarter than that. I think they are going to do better than that, and I think that once they have this menu of opportunities that they are going to make great choices, the marketplace is going to respond, I think, in much less time than one would suspect, that we are going to be looking back at the Medicare problem and not looking at the Medicare problem.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the President's appointed trustees have warned that Medicare will go bankrupt by 2002. If we do nothing, seniors' out-of-pocket costs will [[Page H 8812]] rise and Medicare will be bankrupt in just 7 years. Mr. Speaker, if we raise payroll taxes, as we have done 23 times in 27 years, we will force our children and grandchildren to pay more now for seniors' health care and Medicare will still go bankrupt before our children and grandchildren can retire and gain any benefits. Mr. Speaker, we cannot wait. The problem will not go away. The only solution is to introduce choice for seniors and competition among health care providers. Choice and competition always do two things in our free enterprise system: They lower costs and improve quality. Medicare is far too important to turn it into Medi-scare. Republicans are asking Democrats, please, join us to save and strengthen Medicare.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, all too often the war in Korea--which ended 42 years ago--is referred to as the forgotten war. That reference will end--once and for all--today as America rightfully remembers a war and its warriors who served this Nation with honor, courage, and dignity. This afternoon, thousands of veterans of that demanding and difficult conflict will gather on The Mall to dedicate an impressive memorial which is long overdue and richly deserved. The Korean War Veterans Memorial will be a lasting tribute to the 54,246 Americans killed in Korea between 1950 and 1953. They fought with determination and valor, and in the end these brave Americans turned the tide of battle from near-certain defeat into victory. Behind every war-related statistic there is a face, a family, a story, and a sacrifice. Those who came home deserve a place to remember those who did not. That place will be dedicated today. On this occasion, it is both fitting and appropriate to remind ourselves that we cannot live in a land of the free without first honoring the brave. To the veterans of Korea, you are appreciated by a grateful nation.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Meyers-LaFalce amendment which restores funding for the ABA's Office of Advocacy. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy plays an important role by presenting and fighting for the views of the small business community. The Chief Counsel has a very different role than other administrators in the SBA; he is the independent voice within the agency that represents the interests of small business. The advocate may not necessarily represent the President's Administration position or that of the SBA, however, the SBA and other Federal agencies are required to fully cooperate with the Chief Counsel. While I personally may not agree with some of the position's taken by the Chief Counsel, I believe it is important to maintain the office which is the watchdog for small businesses. By passing the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which was contained in the Contract With America, the Chief Counsel will now have the authority to protect small businesses from overzealous regulators. The Office of Advocacy plays a crucial role as the independent voice of small business. Here is an example in which the Chief Counsel's position was different from the administration's: January 20, 1995--the Chief Counsel supported 100 percent deductibility of health insurance premiums for small business, while the President supported only a 25 percent deduction. In addition, the Office of Advocacy has submitted more than a thousand comments to regulatory agencies to insure that the interests of small business were considered during the rulemaking process. Each time a comment is filed with an executive branch agency, the Chief Counsel, in effect, takes a position independent of the administration. The Chief Counsel's advocacy has resulted in major cost savings for small business. For example: Enhanced poultry inspection--the USDA withdrew this proposed rule consistent with comments filed by the Chief Counsel on October 11, 1994. According to industry estimates, this withdrawal saved the poultry processing industry at least $450 million in up front costs, and at least $185 million in annual recurring costs. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for small businesses by supporting the Meyers-LaFalce amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I was a teacher for 24 years. These is a prescription for success in teaching. It is summarized, ``Repetition is the soul of learning,'' and it works even better if you say the same thing in different ways. It works wonders in our schools. Perhaps it will work here. Listen up on the other side of the aisle. Republicans are not cutting Medicare. The average recipient receives $4,800 now. In 2002 they will receive $6,700. Where is the cut? Republicans are not cutting Medicare--$6,700 is greater than $4,800; $4,800 is smaller than $6,700. Pay to the average recipient of Medicare will grow from $4,800 to $6,700--$6,700 is larger than $4,800. Republicans are not cutting Medicare. This repetition works wonders in our schools. I hope it will work here. Republicans are not cutting Medicare. It will grow from $4,800 to $6,700--$6,700 is larger than $4,800.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, it has been several weeks now since the Board of Trustees of Medicare issued their report saying that by 2002 Medicare will be broke. We are now engaged in a national dialog on this subject. And where have we come in this dialog? I think that the little plate here shows it very well. Are we talking about Medicare, or are we talking about MediScare. The last thing this country needs, Mr. Speaker, is all of the half-truths and untruths that are issuing from the other side of the aisle, that are meant to frighten our senior citizens. What we need is a considered debate on this subject. Apparently my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are content to maintain the status quo by these scare tactics, and let Medicare go bankrupt. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority will not let this happen. We are committed to preserving, protecting, and strengthening Medicare for this generation and future generations.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I had two fundamental problems with the report language in this bill. The first of those problems was I believe taken care of by the colloquy which made it very clear that to continue anti-terrorism activities that were initiated after the Oklahoma City bombing was meant to refer only to the involvement of ATF in the use of their experts in explosives in the continuing investigation of the Oklahoma City incident. This was not meant to authorize any other activity on the part of ATF. My second problem is addressed by this amendment. This amendment if one looks at it sends a relatively mild message that the Congress is less than enthusiastically happy with ATF leadership and Bureau performance. The death of over 20 innocent children at Waco and the recent Good Ol' Boy Roundup are just two reasons we need to send this message. Support the Chenoweth-Bartlett amendment. Send the message.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend and colleague from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. This is a very simple and straightforward issue. Should the taxpayers and people who are conscientiously opposed be forced to pay for and subsidize abortion on command? Mr. Chairman, the Congress and the Supreme Court have been very clear on this issue. This amendment flies in the face of the Hyde amendment which this Congress has, on several occasions, upheld which simply says that the Federal Government should not be in the practice of funding abortions with taxpayer money. In upholding the Hyde amendment, the court has said that, and I quote: Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves a purposeful termination of a potential life. Let us not fund abortion on demand with taxpayer money. Let us not force those who are conscientiously opposed to pay for these abortions.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment with some sense of frustration. I certainly support energy research, particularly coal research. That is not the issue here. I am a member of the authorizing committee. We have developed a balanced program. My concern is where will the money go that is saved here? When we violate the orderly authorization/appropriation process, we create chaos. Thus, I support this amendment because it supports the process we should be followed in this House.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose this attempt to strip an impoverished region of precious funds. I admit that I have little confidence in most Government programs. Since I came to Congress 3 years ago, I have always supported budget proposals that release the strangle-hold that the Federal Government has on our local communities. Washington, DC, has gorged itself on tax dollars long enough. However, the Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] is not like most Federal Government programs. It works. I do not know of any Federal programs which involves State Governors and local officials in the decision making process more than ARC. Working through the 69 local development districts that ARC supports, projects originate at the local level, as community leaders determine what programs best serve their needs. As the 104th Congress makes historic and systemic change in the way Washington works, I believe that ARC is already performing in a way that we wish all of our Government programs could operate. It truly is a unique Federal-State-local partnership that should be used as a model for future cooperative efforts, not torn apart. I understand that times are hard. Sacrifices must be made in all areas if we are going to get the budget deficit under control. My record reflects a strong commitment to reaching a zero budget deficit by 2002 and the subcommittee's bill addresses the necessity to reduce Federal funds for ARC programs. Mr. Chairman, as the bill now exists funding for ARC will be cut in half. That is a significant cut for a program which has in the past provided Appalachian communities with water and sewer systems, access to rural health care centers, child care centers, educational training, job skill training, and affordable housing. Nevertheless, I have heard from a number of local officials in western Maryland who insist that ARC can still play a vital role in our communities. It will simply be leaner, something that all Government programs could be. Some Members are asking why ARC is still necessary. It has a proven track record of improving the conditions of the Appalachian region. However, the poverty rate for Appalachia is still 16 percent higher than the national average. Appalachia's per capita income is only 83 percent of the U.S. average. Over 20 percent of the youth in northern and southern rural areas grow up in poverty and an even higher 34 percent of youth in central Appalachia live in poverty. In fact, 115 of ARC's 399 counties are classified as severely distressed, which means that they suffer from unemployment rates that are 150 percent of the national average and poverty rates are at least 150 percent of the national average. There are too many Government programs that are outdated and inefficient. The Federal bureaucracy is bloated and needs a serious diet. But gutting ARC does not address our problems, it only creates new ones. I urge defeat of this amendment and support the subcommittee's recommended appropriation.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to the amendment. When a similar amendment was introduced by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] during the Committee on Science markup, I strongly opposed it then, and I strongly oppose it today. Today, nuclear energy produces about 20 percent of our electricity. This is the largest producer next to coal. World electricity demand is expected to triple over the course of the next century and I feel it would be extremely short-sighted to eliminate this program when we are going to need a means to meet the worlds increasing electricity demands. Living in a country which now consumes $1 billion in foreign oil imports each week, I think it is imperative to explore other energy options. The GT-MHR is one of the most promising next generation nuclear reactors. As a scientist, let me tell you why I am supportive of this reactor. It combines a meltdown-proof reactor and advanced gas turbine technology in a powerplant that can provide 50 percent more electrical power per unit of thermal energy than other reactors. The current design dramatically lowers the production of radioactive wastes and thermal emissions which results in a new kind of powerplant that is efficient and safe provider of low-cost electricity. Mr. Chairman, this is a prime example of the kind of technology we need to pursue and I urge a no vote on the amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, July 9, was the kind of day when you did not know whether you should laugh or cry. It was a kind of day when you did not know whether you should mourn or celebrate. You see yesterday, July 9, was Government Free Day. Up until yesterday every American worked full-time just to pay for the costs of government. Until about mid-May we all worked to pay the costs of Federal, State, and local taxes, and then incredibly, incredibly from mid-May until July 9, every American worked full-time just to pay the cost of unfunded Federal mandates. It was the day on which one would cry and mourn that he had spent so much of his time working for government. But it was also a day in which we could look forward to today; you might celebrate that, the first day on which you could earn any money for yourself. The average American this year worked a bit more than 189 days to pay for the cost of government. He has left just a bit more than 175 days to do all the things that one needs to do. Father and mother work to pay the mortgage, save money for an education, to prepare for their retirement, to take care of their sicknesses, and all of this has to be done in 175 days after working a bit more than 189 days for the government. Let us kind of put this in perspective. According to Prof. Charles Adams, author of ``For Good and Evil,'' which is a history of taxation published in 1933, peasant serfs in the Mongol Empire in the period of Genghis Khan had to give their feudal lords just one-tenth of what they produced. When you consider how oppressed we think those people were in giving one-tenth of their income, what do you have to say about us who had to work about 52 percent of this year to pay for the cost of government? In the last two elections it was a revolution that began at the polling places, and all across America Americans said enough is enough, and they voted to begin to return this country to that vision of our forefathers. The kind of government that they envisioned was stated by Thomas Jefferson when he indicated that the government which governs best is the government which governs least. We have got to be about a million miles from that dream of Thomas Jefferson, and that Abraham Lincoln in a period of crisis in our country said it just as well. He said it differently. He said that government should only do for its citizens what they cannot do for themselves. Someone has said that considering how ineffective government is, how much it has interfered with our families, how much it has depreciated the business environment, that we ought to be thankful that we do not get all the government that we pay for. If government was efficient and effective in doing what it does, it would have done even more damage to our families and to our economy. Another thing that really causes one to stop and think is the realization that after 7 years of balancing the budget, as my colleague from Texas indicated just a little earlier, we will have moved back the Cost of Government Day just 17 days. I do not think that that is what Americans had in mind when they went to the polling places these last two elections and began this revolution. Moving back the Cost of Government Day just 17 days after 7 years; that is not enough. That is not what Americans had in mind. We have just begun this battle to take back our country and to return it to the kind of country envisioned by our forefathers. Think about it, America. [[Page H 6704]] Think about July 9. Think about spending 52 percent of your time working for government. Think about that when you go to the polls and the next election to continue this revolution.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I carry always with me a copy of the Constitution, and one of the previous speakers mentioned the first amendment, which has, of course, several very important protections in it: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble.'' Obviously, these are very important rights that are guaranteed to us, but we have recognized as a country that there are some limits to these. For instance, the right of free speech will not permit you to get up in a crowded motion picture theater and yell ``fire, fire'' when there is not a fire. I think that this proposed amendment, which protects our flag against desecration, is at least the equivalent of denying the person the right to yell ``fire, fire'' in a crowded theater. This flag is a symbol of this great Republic. It stands for the whole history of our country. I think there is just no reasonable rebuttal to this very important amendment which four out of five Americans support.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, balancing the budget is serious and difficult business. This was made even plainer this week when it was made known by the Congressional Budget Office that the President's plan to balance the budget in 10 years, which, by the way, is far longer than most Americans want to take to balance the budget, that his plan is out of balance by roughly $200 billion a year and is still out of balance at the end of 10 years by, I think, $209 billion. Now, I am sure that the President and all of his people worked very hard on this plan to balance the budget, and the fact that it is out of balance every year roughly $200 billion and still out of balance in year 10, over $200 billion, indicates how difficult balancing the budget is. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you where the real wisdom is in how to balance the budget, and that is outside the beltway. Let us go out to real America where people work and earn a living and balance their budget day in and day out, year in and year out. They will have the answer of how to do it here.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1530 contains language that returns us to the policy that stood during the Reagan and Bush years that prohibited abortions from being performed on military hospitals. Today's amendment would codify in law the radical change to this policy by the Clinton administration. Mr. Chairman, it boggles my mind that we are even here today debating such an amendment. The purpose of our military hospitals is to save lives not to take them. Most military doctors believe this so strongly that it is next to impossible to find a military doctor who will perform an abortion. But to get around this policy, the pro-abortion forces are attempting to bring civilians onto military facilities, who they will pay large sums of money, to perform abortions. Most members of the military medical corps are so outraged by this procedure that they do not feel comfortable being on the same base where abortions are being performed. Let us save innocent life, not take it. Let us abort the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, the average American is both surprised and shocked to learn that we have no defense, let me say it again, no defense against even one ballistic missile attack. Some say that we do not need one because we are in the post-cold-war period. I think Robert Gates said it very well when he said it is as if you went into the jungle and slew the dragon, only to observe that you are now surrounded by poisonous vipers, 25 poisonous vipers in the form of 25 nations that are acquiring weapons of mass destruction and rapidly acquiring the ability to deliver them. However, the original dragon, like the Sphinx, is capable of resurrection. Chernovsky, arguably the most popular politician in Russia has 2 goals: one, to have a child in each province; and two, to take back Alaska when he controls Russia. Are Members content that we do not need a ballistic missile defense system? Vote ``no'' on these amendments. That would strip us of our chance to protect our people and our service men and women.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, Medicare's trustees warn that the Medicare system will be bankrupt in just 7 years in 2002. That means that if you are 58 today--there might be no Medicare for you when you turn 65. If the system goes bankrupt, Medicare does not have the authority to pay the hospital bills of any one senior citizen, let alone the 37 million senior citizens and disabled who will depend upon it. That is the challenge all Americans face. Republicans are committed to preserving, protecting, and saving Medicare. We urge the President to join us in this effort.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, in spite of what we hear in this Chamber, we have been astounded at the lack of negative response to this budget from outside the Beltway. Americans all across the country are way ahead of us. They want the budget balanced sooner, rather than later. Confidence is very low in our country's future, particularly among our young people. Recent polls show that more of them believe in UFOs than believe that they will ever get any Social Security. This budget is a promise to our young people that in the future we are going to do better than we have done in the past. Restore their confidence in this body and in their country. Vote this gift to our children. Vote for Solomon-Neumann.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I spent 24 years of my life as a teacher, and I thought for a few moments today we might go back to school. Here, as you might remember from kindergarten, is a number line. What we were supposed to learn from that was that 3 is greater than 2 and 6 is greater than 4. But apparently some of us are slow learners. As you will see from this next graph, these are the numbers for Medicare payments per recipient. On a scale that is uninterrupted so it is not distorted, as a result of the Republican plan to balance the budget. Please notice that we are now spending $4,700 per recipient in Medicare. By the year 2002, that will increase to $6,300. That is bigger than, larger than $4,700. Let us see if we have got it right now: $6,300 is bigger than $4,700. So Republicans are not cutting Medicare.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to respond to the allegations that this budget cuts Medicare and cuts Medicaid; that just is not true. Just look at the budget, and look at the figures in the budget. Today every Medicare recipient, the average across the country, gets $4,700. At the end of this budget process that will have risen to $6,300. That is not a cut. What we are going to do is to preserve the Medicare system. It is now doomed unless one does something about it going bankrupt by 2002. We are not cutting Medicare. It will increase from $4,700 to $6,300 per every recipient; that is not a cut. Let me say it again: When you go from $4,700 to $6,300, that's not a cut. Please be productive. Please join us in this process to perfecting a budget that is going to save our country for our children. Do not continue with these misstatements of fact.