Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. The gentleman mentioned the families first agenda which I am terribly proud of. That effort was put together by Members traveling through their districts for the last several months and listening to people and what their concerns are, some of the things we have talked about here tonight: How are they going to afford to send their kids to school? How do they make sure they are meeting their obligation to their parents and meeting their obligation to their kids? And their concern about their children in schools, with violence, how are they going to maintain their standard of living, all of those kinds of things. I know so many Members spent a lot of hours, I know my colleagues here did, just really in living rooms. I did so many meetings just in people's living rooms, listening to what they have to say. The families first agenda is about that. It is saying that families are first and not last. The Contract With America was, and my gosh, they cannot run away fast enough from it now, they are running away from the contract, from the leadership, with good reason, because it in fact had nothing to do with how we were going to try to help people raise their standard of living and take care of these kind of kitchen table issues and discussions that people have. But the families first agenda is modest. It is not big government. They are not large bureaucracies, not grandiose ideas. It is some very basic, simple principles and initiatives which can be implemented, around which there can be a consensus to get implementation: the targeted tax cuts for education that we talked about; health care insurance for children from zero to 13. Let us make sure our kids have health insurance. There are so many young families today where they cannot afford to have insurance, and kids get sick. Kids get sick. That is a fact of life. Where the heck do you get the money to be able to take care of that insurance? Pension reform, making it easier for businesses to offer pensions, making sure that pensions are accessible, making sure that that kind of corporate raiding of pensions is prohibited in some way. And there are proposals to deal with that. Child care proposals for working families, a big issue. How you are able to work? You have both parents working today. What do you do about child care? There is also an initiative about working with State government on jobs and looking at how we try to implement a program that gets money to the State. States put in matching funds so we can create jobs around school construction and airports and roads and bridges and so forth. So a modest set of proposals that can be implemented. I think we can all be proud of the families first agenda.

Ms. DeLAURO. Let me just make one more point, because I think it is very clear this is not too long ago before we left for the August work period that Bill Thomas of California talked about the Medicare Program as a socialist program. Last week in Congress Daily, when someone asked the Speaker how we could pay for the Dole economic plan, the $600 billion tax cut program, he said, well, we will have to go back and look at entitlement programs again maybe, and we will probably have to look to defense as well. So they added that on. But the first, the very first, thing out of his mouth was the entitlement programs again: Entitlement, Medicare. That is what we are talking about. So they are prepared to go back to trying to cut Medicare and education again and all of the programs that people are utilizing for their families, not wasting money on. Nobody is talking about being spendthrifts and doing that. People are talking about a Medicare system that has helped people, student loans which help people, but if they are going to try to go for $600 billion and try to balance the budget at the same time and not cut defense, where is the money coming from?

Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, it is so clear, because I have Stratford, CT, where since 1918 the Raybestos Co. has been dumping, it was just toxic soup here, and despite two shutdowns, we have had the Superfund Program working. There has been such a cooperative effort between the Federal, State, and local government, working together to clean up this site to put the cap down. There is a developer who will come in and put up a shopping mall. We will have construction jobs, we will have revenue to the State of Connecticut and an increase in jobs. It is one of the best examples of cooperation and of partnership. And as I mentioned a few minutes ago, during the shutdowns, even during the shutdowns the Superfund Program continued to work with the project, help to provide money to keep it going, to keep it going, because of what it means for the future of that community. If the Republicans had had their way over this past 20 months, EPA would be gone. It was over. That is why what we need to do is, on a whole number of issues that have been talked about, whether it is school lunch, college loans, the direction that this march was moving in in terms of what it wanted to do, it was halted because of the public outcry. People said no, these programs work. School lunch works. Medicare works. The environmental regulations are good for us. They said no, so we had a stopping of it. My colleague, the gentleman from California, is right; it was almost unbelievable that the group who brought you the last 20 months was nowhere to be seen in San Diego. They were taken off the screen. But if they had followed their natural instincts, so many of these efforts that were really products of bipartisanship in years past would have been gone.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 6, 1996, State Representative Vincent Chase will be honored with a dinner-roast. Representative Chase has served in the Connecticut State Legislature for 16 years and recently announced that he will not be seeking reelection. It is my great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to Vinnie and to congratulate and thank him for him many years of public service. Vinnie was first elected to the general assembly in 1980 to represent the 120th District in Stratford. In the following years, he went on to become one of the highest ranking leaders of the House of Representatives. After the 1990 election he was appointed as an assistant house minority leader and for the 1995 and 1996 sessions, he served as deputy house minority leader. During his tenure in the legislature, Vinnie developed a reputation for consistency and thoroughness. His ability to master details led to his appointment to serve as cochair of the regulation review committee. In addition, he served as dean of the insurance and real estate committee and also served on the executive and legislative nominations committee and the joint committee on legislative management. Vinnie's experience and skill as a legislator led to several initiatives of which he is particularly proud. He has worked on legislation dealing with health and auto insurance reform, welfare reform, and the protection of Long Island Sound. In 1996 he cosponsored legislation which resulted in the removal of tolls from Interstate 95 and the Marritt and Wilbur Cross parkways and the largest tax cut in Connecticut history. These successes underscore the need for legislators that bring a sense of personal and moral responsibility to politics. For 16 years, Vinnie never forgot the reason he went to Hartford: to serve. He has remained a consistent champion for his constituents and a true public servant. He has said, The greatest honor of my years of service has not been the awards or plaques that I have received from various groups, but the simple ``thank you'' from a constituent I was able to assist. For that is what public service is all about, helping people. Throughout his legislative career, Vincent has brought common sense and concern for people to the general assembly. His contributions and efforts will be greatly missed. I have long relied on Vinnie's hard-won wisdom and insightful advice. We have worked together to protect Stratford's environment and to fight for job's for Statford's citizens. I will continue to seek his counsel as long as I am in Congress. It is my pleasure to join Vincent's family friends, and citizens of the town of Stratford in wishing him well as he leaves the State house of representatives and begins a new chapter in his life.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to honor Steven Segaloff as he returns from the 1996 Summer Olympic games in Atlanta, GA. On Wednesday, August 14 the Jewish Community Center of Greater New Haven sponsored a Welcome Olympian celebration for Steven. I have known Steven for many years and am a close friend of his parents, Barbara and Jim Segaloff. It gives me great pleasure to be able to recognize Steven's achievements. As a member of the Olympic crew team, Steven has embodied all that we have come to expect and admire in Olympic athletes. Originally introduced to the sport by his father, Steven has truly made it his own. Crew is a sport which requires exceptional teamwork. The coxswain must coordinate the eight men rowing, guide the boat, and motivate the team. It is the role of the coxswain to pull the team together to function as a cohesive unit. This role demands keen judgment and extraordinary skill as a tactician. Throughout his rowing career, Steven has proven himself to be a master of these skills and an invaluable member of the team. Steven first began to row at the Yale Boathouse on the Housatonic River in Derby, where he filled in for regular varsity coxes when they missed practice. He continued to cox for Cornell University's Varsity crew team. Upon graduation from Cornell, Steven went to work for Senator Joseph Biden as a staff assistant to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993. However, his plans to continue in politics and law were put on hold indefinitely when he was asked to cox for the national team. In the past 3 years of preparation for the Olympics, Steven has coxed the national team to first place finishes at the 1994 World Rowing Championships, the 1994 Henley Royal Regetta in London, the 1994 Goodwill Games, and the 1995 Pan American Games in Argentina. Steven came to the Olympic games with the same drive and determination that he brought to those competitions. The U.S. team qualified for the finals with a win in the first heat and finished in fifth place. Although Steven is disappointed to have missed the gold medal, New Haven is nothing but proud. Steven has shown all of us the beauty of an athlete pursuing a dream with extraordinary commitment, dedication, and passion. He has truly embodied the spirit of the Olympic games. I am very pleased to join Steven's parents and friends as they welcome him back from the Olympics. I offer my heartfelt congratulations on a job well done. The United States has everything to be proud of in this great athlete.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Tower One/Tower East on the 25th anniversary of this outstanding multicultural senior housing facility. For a quarter of a century, the New Haven Jewish Federation Housing Corp. has given New Haven area seniors a place to call home in Tower One. Tower One was a special concept 25 years ago, and is a model to this day. The many distinguished leaders and business people who have taken up the mantle of leadership have helped assure the building's continued renewal. Most important, Tower One is a measure of this community's sense of obligation to its retirees, our parents and grandparents. Tower One's history illustrates its commitment to people. Through the years, the organization has been creative and innovative in its response to the needs of residents. In the late 1970's, Tower One focused mainly on providing necessities, such as serving meals, filling apartment vacancies, and making building repairs. However, the nature of public housing and the needs of the residents began to change and in response, the board implemented extraordinary reforms. A new management structure for the staff was created, additional committees were formed to help the board deliver social services and plan for the long term. Finally, a new executive director, Dorothy Giannini-Meyers, was named to inaugurate imaginative new programs that would allow residents to keep living independently. The result was the broad array of services now available to residents and the transformation of Tower One from an elderly apartment complex to a caring, close-knit, and involved community. When we celebrate Tower One's 25th anniversary, we celebrate the values that make families and communities strong--the values that enable Tower One to create a true home for Connecticut's seniors. Tower One is a community where people have fun, where the help and support they need is available. Their religious faith is affirmed, even as they age beyond the rituals of family. We all understand that this is a community that affirms our unity and humanity. I treasure the yearly opportunity I have to host a holiday party at Tower One because it gives me the chance to share in the holiday celebrations so dear to Tower One's residents. Most important, the seniors at Tower One are able to honor the religious and cultural traditions that keep them close to family and friends. It is truly a place where residents feel at home. I sincerely congratulate all those at Tower One on this proud occasion. I know that Bob Bachman's leadership will enable Tower One to continue its development and growth. I congratulate Tower One on 25 great years and with it the same success in the future.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day that almost never came. America needs a raise. It is a tribute to the dignity and to the hard work of those Americans who get up every morning and go to work for the minimum wage that we are here today about to pass legislation raising the minimum wage by 90 cents. The American people's overwhelming support for a minimum wage increase has won the day today, but we had to overcome the steadfast opposition of a Republican leadership who vowed to stop it and even denied that minimum wage workers exist in this country. I know different. I have a letter from Janis Venditto, a working mother in Hamden, CT, whose husband fought in the Persian Gulf war. They are struggling to feed their kids and to pay their bills and my constituent says: I really wish someone out there can really listen to me for once. Raise the minimum wage. I know I am not the only person in this situation. It is a shame that the most wonderfulest country in the world cannot give us moms a small break. That is what this is all about. We need to pass the minimum wage.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, finally, almost a year to the day that it was introduced, we are prepared to pass the Kennedy health care reform bill. This much-needed legislation will provide millions of Americans with health insurance through greater portability and other needed reforms. And to think that this day almost never was. In spite of the vote of 100 to 0 in the Senate, it took Democrats, constantly pressuring the Republicans, to get to where we are today. The Republicans were prepared to let this bill languish in the Senate, but we applied the pressure here, and more important the American people applied the pressure all across this country, and the Republicans were forced to act. Imagine, forced to enact legislation that would help working families be able to maintain their insurance, to prevent insurance companies from discriminating based on preexisting conditions. Mr. Speaker, we are sent here to do the people's business and to work on behalf of families in this country. The bottom line is that although some may have gotten here kicking and screaming, they are here. We will pass health care legislation today.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this legislation. The Republican leadership wants to use this offensive measure as its latest wedge issue to divide the American people. English is the official language of this Nation. Newcomers to our great country struggle day in and day out to learn our language and to become full members of our society. I want to share with the Members something about the personal struggle of an immigrant, my father, who knew something about this issue. Ted DeLauro, an Italian immigrant, came to this great nation from Italy at the age of 13. He came eagerly, in pursuant of the American dream, a good education, and economic prosperity. Tragically, my father had to give up part of that dream, an opportunity for an education. He left school in the 7th grade simply because he could not speak English. In class he confused the word ``janitor'' with the Italian word ``genitori,'' which means family. He defined the word ``janitor'' as meaning parents. His teachers and his fellow students ridiculed him and made him feel alone. He was so humiliated that he never went back to school. That event touched him, it touched my family deeply, and it changed our lives. English is the official language of the United States. New residents of our country want desperately to speak the language and to assimilate. If we are truly interested in codifying the importance of English, we should increase resources for bilingual education in our schools, reach out to residence who are struggling to learn the language, and ironically, this majority leadership, that claims to want to enshrine English as the language of all our residents, has cut bilingual education for thousands of students trying, like my father did, to fit in and to contribute to American life. It is shameful. My father's story should never be repeated. Children should never have to quit school because they cannot understand the language. This people's House should reject this attempt to divide our country. Vote against this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a real victory for hard working American families, and after 20 months of gridlock and shutdowns I am pleased that the Republican leadership has finally relented to getting something done for the American people. It is about time. The health reform bill makes long overdue changes to our Nation's health care system. This bill will free working families from unfair insurance company practices that deny coverage due to a preexisting condition and deny workers the right to keep their health insurance when they change jobs. This bill will make a real difference in the lives of working families struggling to get and to keep health care coverage. The construction worker in Wallingford, CT will be helped when he told me that his biggest fear if his company downsizes is that his daughter has a terminal illness and that he stays awake every single night worried about what happens if he loses that job, how will he pay for health insurance for his daughter? And it has taken us 20 months, 20 months to help give some peace of mind to this construction worker in Wallingford, CT. Let me tell you this achievement would not have been possible were it not for the will and the determination of congressional Democrats. The Republican leadership roadblocked this much-needed legislation, left the health care security of families hanging in the balance. The leadership of the Congress was more concerned about special interest campaign contributions than in the progress and the security of working American families. Mr. Speaker, we still have a very long way to go. I was disappointed that the conference dropped the mental health parity provision in the bill, and I have introduced legislation to achieve this needed reform. I am committed to working in a bipartisan fashion to enact mental health parity. Mr. Speaker, today is a good day, a great day for working families and, thanks to the pressure from ordinary citizens in this country, we will make these small and yet important changes in our private health care system. Vote for the health care reform bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was in Atlanta this past weekend, and I felt the aftershocks of the pipe bomb explosion in Centennial Park. The true spirit of the games, the athletes, and the spectators shone through, and everyone agreed that the games must go on and that we should not bow to hostile acts of terror; but people also felt equally strongly that Congress must act to prevent this violence. The American people do not feel safe, and part of that is because we are good at catching criminals after the fact, but we are not good at preventing them from acting. The American people want the Government to have the tools that it needs to prevent these bombings. President Clinton has asked the Congress this week to act on much-needed antiterrorism proposals like putting tracers in explosives, in gunpowder, a tool that is needed to be able to prevent acts of terror; but the NRA is opposed to these tracers. Their opposition is wrong. We cannot in good faith leave for the August recess without passing legislation that will give the Federal Government the tools that it needs to stop terrorism in this country. We need and we must act in good faith. We must leave in August and provide people with the peace of mind that they need so that we can keep this country free of terrorism.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXX, I object to the gentleman's use of the exhibit. The SPEAKER pro tempo. Does the gentleman plan to use this exhibit?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. parliamentary inquiry

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague very, very much for carrying the discussion and the debate on this critically important issue, and I know he shares what I do today, a sense of history, a sense of great accomplishment on the part of this great Nation of ours, when 31 years ago the Medicare system was signed into law by President Johnson. It truly is a day of real historical value for all of us, and we congratulate those who put their vision, their commitment, their compassion, their view of what the values of this Nation is all about, they put that forward and said what we need to have to do in this Nation is that seniors need to have health insurance. Nation is that seniors need to have health insurance. The facts spoke for themselves. In 1959, only 46 percent of seniors had any kind of health insurance. We hear the tales all of the time about there being no place to go. Families had to be the sole support for their loved ones if they were ill and that they did not have any help in doing any of that, and so many people's health was put into jeopardy. Today what we have is a direct reversal of that problem back in 1959. Today 99 percent of seniors are covered for health insurance and it is a direct result of the Medicare system. So that this is a program, it is more than a program. It is not a program. It says something about what we value in the United States, what our values are, what our priorities are. That in fact, those who reach the age of 65, those people who have played by the rules, who have contributed so much to our society, who have paid their dues, if you will, they need this opportunity to have the benefit of being able to one more time pay again but to get some assistance and have a health insurance system that is available to them, that is guaranteed to them, and that makes them independent; that does not make them dependent on their children, and it gives them a sense of dignity and a sense of security in their retirement years. That is what is the historical value of this anniversary this, 31st anniversary of truly making health insurance for seniors one of those values on which this Nation stands. My colleagues from New Jersey joined with me yesterday in the Families First hearing on protecting Medicare, and it was one more instance of that highlighting of the difference that this program makes in the lives of 37 million people. And what we are concerned about and what he has expressed his concern about is one more time we are looking for the second year in a row, quite frankly, though this is not also without a historical past, we have known some folks, including the current candidate for the Presidency in the Republican Party, Bob Dole, who was out there and he goes back, saying he was proud that he cast his vote against Medicare because it was a program that did not work. So he has a history on this issue. But we have seen the unbelievable attempt to cut the Medicare Program in the last 2 years with this Republican leadership, first to the tune of $270 billion and if you juxtapose that with the $245 billion in a tax cut for the very wealthy that the Republicans wanted to provide, I do not believe that there is a coincidence in those numbers. We are now back again for the second round of cuts that talk about $168 billion and their tax package for the wealthy that runs around $176 billion. So again these numbers are not coincidental. What I think is interesting to find out is that we have a prelude of what we are talking about in the future, and in the immediate future. The Wall Street Journal yesterday indicated, there is an article there that describes Senator Dole's new tax plan, or at least what they view as his potential new tax plan, which is expected to be released next week. I want to read this because I think it is important about what portends for the future. Mr. Dole and his advisors now contemplate a tax cut of Reaganesque proportions. Fifteen percent across the board for individuals. That is almost five times as large as what the congressional Republicans included in their latest budget plan. Five times as large. It would cost more than $600 billion over the next 6 years, this 15 percent tax cut. Now, there was another article in the Wall Street Journal that tried to figure out what happens, where this money begins to come from, and it is without question, I mean what they did not do was to say specifically this is the program that it comes from, but there was no indication from Bob Dole as to how he plans to pay for the massive tax break. And no one knows how he intends to pay for it, because that information is being held very closely. I hope next week, if he introduces the program that in fact what he will do is to let the public know how he intends to pay for it. But what is clear, and at our hearing yesterday was Lawrence Shimmerin, the managing director and chief economist at the Economic Strategy Institute. He said that you are going to have to take a look at a whole variety of programs from which there will be cuts. And that includes education, it will include infrastructure, roads, bridges, the construction of schools, a whole variety of programs, again which demonstrate some values when you talk about education and the environment and what we want to do to try to put people to work, that the money is going to have to come from there. Then when we asked him, he said in effect that the money is going to have to come from programs like Medicare. So that, in fact, we are looking at, with the introduction, the potential introduction of this tax plan by Bob Dole, what we are going to see is another round of cuts to the Medicare Program. And when you are looking at $600 billion over the next 6 years, our colleague from the other body, Jim Exon, said that we are potentially looking at $313 billion in cuts in the Medicare Program. So that this is not something that is an idea that is not being nourished, and not being nurtured and prone to be moved. Bob Dole is going to introduce this plan in the next week or 2 weeks. So what we are going to do is to see an amazing escalation of those costs and cuts in the Medicare Program, because there are not going to be too many places to which you can go to make those kind of cuts. If we think about future direction and we look at the historical past where we have Bob Dole saying that he was happy to fight the fight and be 1 of 12 and vote against Medicare because it did not work, we can understand the move to this massive tax cut and what that means to the Medicare Program. Now, I will stand here and tell you as I know my colleague is, I am a believer in tax cuts. Let us make sure that working families are the beneficiary of those tax cuts. If we provide people with the opportunity to take a tax deduction of $10,000 a year in order to finance the education for their children or to have the opportunity themselves to get skills training and education, if they need that in order to further their own job, their career ladder, we ought to target those tax cuts. But if we are looking at using Medicare as the piggy bank to finance those tax breaks, then it really is unconscionable and it is wrong and it is an outrage. I will just make one or two other points to my colleague, as I say, to say that we have an historical legacy here. We have the Speaker of the House talking about wanting to see the Medicare Program wither on the vine, and that people will voluntarily leave it, though he is trying to walk away from those comments. But you cannot walk away from what you have said. Your actions and your words are there for people to take a look at. We even have had Bill Thomas, who is on the Health Subcommittee, refer to Medicare as a socialist program. The kinds of language in which people talk about the Medicare system. Dick Armey said he would not want to be a part of such a system in a free world. And these are the folks who come to tell us and to tell the American people, whether they are our seniors or whether they are the families of seniors that trust us, what we want to basically do is to slow the rate of growth. In fact, what they are doing is cutting the Medicare Program, jeopardizing the health care of seniors and putting them in a position where they will have to pay more, or that they will lose the choice of doctors. And in some places in this Nation, we will watch hospitals close down and, in fact, people who deserve to have health insurance and health care at this time of their life will not have the benefit of that. It is hard, as I said, to walk away from the commentary that people have made over the recent past and the more further past and to have them now come forward and say that they are going to try to make the program a better program. Their goal truly is to dismantle this program which works. My constituents believe it works. They believe it needs to be fixed. Sure they do, and it does. The trustees said there was $90 billion that we needed in order to, in the short term, make the program solvent. We need to have a bipartisan commission to take a look at the long term, whatever that means. Nobody disagrees with that. What they do disagree with is ending a Medicare Program, of leaving people behind, taking that 99 percent and beginning to move it back to the 46 percent of seniors who had health care in this country. That is what cannot happen. What we ought to be debating on this floor, what we ought to be talking about is how we make the Medicare system stronger; how, in fact, we do something about long-term care for people in this country; how we do something about the cost of prescription drugs; how we deal with home health care. And that is what direction we ought to be going in. We ought to be building on what we have, not unraveling what we have in this great country of ours. And as my colleague was talking about, this whole notion of overcharging today, of removing the restrictions on hospitals and doctors that prohibit them today from overcharging Medicare recipients, how can we in good conscience stand here and talk about that as a way to fix this program? What is wonderfully interesting, though, is that I think in your community, in my community, the folks see through what is going on here. And that in and of itself is rewarding because they are fighting the battle against what the Republican leadership is trying to do. They made that fight last year, and I know they are going to make the fight this year. But for today, it is happy birthday and it is happy anniversary to a health insurance system that works for the people that it was intended to help. And that is the Medicare system. And we need to once again pledge that we are going to make sure that the system stays here, that it is a better system and it is going to be a good system for people in the future, and I thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue.

Ms. DeLAURO. If my colleague will just yield on that point?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I think there is one point that my colleague made which I think we need to remake. It is not so much sometimes people do not understand the term balanced billing. It is the overcharging. Right now there are prohibitions on hospitals and doctors that they cannot charge the individual recipient for the difference in what Medicare will reimburse to the physician for their service. So that in fact the recipient cannot have that burden of the extra charge as put on them. That is lifted. Those prohibitions are gone, which means that doctors and hospitals can charge the individual, the Medicare recipient, for what they view as what their fee is over and above what Medicare will reimburse them for. This is direct out-of-pocket costs, direct out-of-pocket costs. That is real. That is what is in this proposal right now. And we cannot, people cannot lose sight of that, because it is not so much that the part B program is going to double the way they had it going last year. but this is kind of hidden in the language as to what is going on here. People truly do need to be educated and made aware of what risk they are for out-of-pocket costs.

Ms. DeLAURO. And they will tell you that they are trying to save it, but let me just say this is a value, health insurance for seniors, that has stood the test of time. In fact, let us try to make it better. Let us build on the quality that has allowed for 99 percent of our seniors to have health insurance. Let us look at how we can make sure that we bring down the cost of prescription drugs, that we provide for home health care which can help bring down the cost of health care, look at long-term health care so people get some relief in that area. Why are we wanting to take the system that is truly working? Let us fix what is wrong, but let us not destroy something that people have come to rely on in their lives.

Ms. DeLAURO. My colleague is absolutely right. It is a question of who they want to help. We do come here to help, but it is a question of who they want to help. And you will hear the argument over and over again that what they want to do is to save the program, that they want to slow the rate of growth. And nobody suggests that we should not deal with the fraud and abuse pieces because fraud and abuse in the entire health care system is about 10 percent. We spend about $800 billion for health care in this country every year so it is about $80 billion roughly. There is fraud and abuse in the Medicare system. We ought to go at it and root it out. As both of you have pointed out, what they did was absolutely contrary to that goal by making it easier for people to abuse the system. But what I find that is rankling in the argument that is made is that what we want to do is to hold the cost of Medicare down. Noble cause. Noble cause. However, why are we trying to hold the cost down of private insurance? Why are we not trying to hold the cost down of prescription drugs? Why are we not holding the costs down in every other section of our health care system but only want to hold the cost down and stick it to seniors? We tried in the last session of Congress to pass health care reform and we failed. I think the goal was good, but we may have moved too quickly, too fast, taken on too much. But the issue there, the single biggest issue, was to slow the rate of growth down for the entire health system, not just one piece of it, and everybody agreed that you could not just hold the costs down in one place while everything else was still rising. Why are we not going after some of the other parts of this health care system in the same way that they would like to go after the Medicare system and particularly the beneficiaries in the Medicare system by increasing their out-of-pocket costs, allowing them to have limited or no choice in their doctors and helping to close down health care facilities in this country, and all, all of that, not to save the system, but to provide a tax cut for those who through their own wherewithal have done very well; nobody takes that away from them, but the most wealthy and the privileged should not increase their wealth at the expense of people who are vulnerable and in the senior years of their lives.

Ms. DeLAURO. The third largest contributor to the Republican Party, Golden Rule Insurance.

Ms. DeLAURO. The Consumers Union; those are the people who publish the Consumer Reports that so many people in this country rely on if they are going to buy an automobile or an appliance or, you know, they take a look at that and they can tell you what the best, you know, what the best buy is, has described the medical savings accounts as a time bomb and that it will just, you know--has a potential of skimming off the top the healthy, the healthiest and the wealthiest of seniors out of the system leaving the most frail, the most ill, and thereby driving the costs of premiums up. In addition to that, of shifting, helping to shift once again, the cost shifting argument of people who are in traditional programs having to pick up the costs of some of these, you know, the increased costs and these premiums. But there again that is all for, you know, the special interest effort of the Golden Rule Insurance Co.

Ms. DeLAURO. We know that in order to bring the cost of health care down that more people have to be insured so that the costs are shared, and we are struggling with how we do that. One of the pieces that we have in the families' first agenda is trying to insure children from zero to 13 years old. But we are trying to get to a point where-- because when people are not insured, those, when they get sick, the cost of that health care goes someplace. It just does not evaporate, or disappear. It winds up that everybody else picks up a portion of it. That is this whole cost shifting idea, and sometimes it is mind-boggling to me that the one system that we have that insures 99 percent of the particular population which helps to keep the costs down is the one that they are going after to try to dissipate to break up, to dismantle, when what we ought to be doing is finding out how we can insure children from zero to 13. How do we get more people insured who are sharing the costs, not getting a free ride? Nobody should get a free ride, but are sharing the cost of picking up their health care costs or a portion of their health care costs so that those who are insured are not having to pay twice, their own and someone else's. That is what this is about.

Ms. DeLAURO. The gentleman is absolutely right. If we take a look at it in terms of percentages, they were talking about $270 billion over 7 years. They are now talking about $168 billion over 6 years. It went from a 19-percent cut to 17-percent cut, which is just the same as you have said. So, they are doing the same exact thing that they did last year, when there was such an outcry. People really truly do need to understand that. I want just one more point which I believe it was the pundit or the journalist Morton Kondracke asked the third person in charge of this Congress, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] said: You know, the public thinks that the Republican leadership has been extreme or at least there is the view out there by some that the Republican leadership has truly been extreme over the last 18 or 20 months. If you are back in the majority again, will you be engaged in the same kinds of initiatives that you were in the 104th Congress? He talked specifically about Medicare, and he said that they would once again do the same thing. So it is 270, it is 168, it is the same thing. It was not only in this Congress, their intention is, if they get back to the leadership here again, to do the very same thing again in the future. So it is the very, very same argument. My colleague is right to point out that we cannot lose sight of that.

Ms. DeLAURO. The trustees, which were, as my colleague will remember, there were so many on the other side of the aisle that held up the trustees report day in and day out. The trustees said $90 billion for the short-term solvency of the program. As I have suggested, I think we need to have a bipartisan commission look at the long-term solvency. We did that on Social Security. We can do that here. The President, I think he has talked about $116 billion, that you could extend the life of the program, as my colleague pointed out. But they are committed to these tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, the wealthiest, the most privileged in our society, and they cannot get off that kick. That tax cut was what Newt Gingrich called the crown jewel of the Contract With America. And whether you take the $245 billion in the tax cut or you take the $176 billion that they are talking about now, and if you take that a step further and you talk about what Bob Dole is talking about, which is $600 billion over a 6- year period of time, we all know that we are going to look at another round of cuts to the Medicare Program. There is no doubt about that; no doubt, I think, in anyone's mind. Not only will it be Medicare, but I can tell my colleague that another area that you have great interest in is education and the environment. We are going to see massive cuts in those areas as well. I do not happen to think that that is what this Nation is about. I think this speaks, we can balance the budget. We can do that. The question is, what are the values that we espouse in that balanced budget. I think we have been given a very, very good indication of the kinds of values that our Republican leadership here in this House espouses.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today is the 31st anniversary of Medicare. Let's stop to think about what a difference Medicare has made in the lives of our seniors. Before Medicare, only 46 percent of American seniors had health insurance. Today 99 percent are covered. In 1966, the poverty rate for seniors was almost 30 percent. Today, fewer than 10 percent of our Nation's elderly live in poverty. Can this possibly be the same Medicare Program that Bob Dole bragged about ``fighting the fight * * * voting against Medicare in 1965 * * * because we knew it wouldn't work?'' And the same program that Speaker Gingrich expects to ``wither on the vine?'' And is it the same Medicare that the chair of the Health Subcommittee, Bill Thomas called ``the old-fashioned, socialist 1960's top-heavy bureaucratic system.'' Medicare works. The seniors in my district know it and seniors across the country know it. And these same seniors are deeply set against cutting Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. We made a pledge to seniors 31 years ago--Medicare must be protected and continue to provide quality health care that seniors can rely on.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill that will cut the pay of America's workers. This bill is yet another example of how this Congress continues to sell out working families. Overtime pay is vitally important to these families because wages have not provided a rising standard of living. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that average hourly pay has fallen by 11 percent over the past 17 years, and working families rely on overtime pay to keep up with the costs of feeding their kids and paying the rent. This bill will take away the opportunity to earn overtime pay. Middle-income families will be hit hardest by this bill because overtime pay is a much larger percentage of their income. In 1994, two- thirds of the workers who earned overtime pay had a total annual family income of less than $40,000. On behalf of the hard-working families in Connecticut and across this country, I call on my colleagues to vote against this outrageous assault on working Americans.