Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule, and I do this on behalf of the millions of seniors across this great country of ours that will be hurt by this budget and its sweeping cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. The stakes in this debate are high, very high, because Medicare and Medicaid have provided essential support to our seniors so that they may live in some dignity. Today 37 million seniors depend on Medicare, and we in the Congress have a solemn obligation to make sure that they can count on it. People who work hard and save for a lifetime should have the chance for a dignified, a secure, a safe and a decent retirement, and Medicare must be protected. Think about the difference that Medicare has made in the lives of seniors. In 1959 only 46 percent of Americas seniors had any health insurance in this country. 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. Despite these great achievements, Medicare and Medicaid are one more time on that chopping block. The budget conference report that we consider tonight proposes $168 billion in cuts in Medicare over the next 6 years. These cuts are not to be used for the solvency of the Medicare trust fund or to contribute to the needed deficit reduction that we have been talking about. In fact, by their own admission, the Republicans have said that this budget resolution will increase the deficit. A number of their members have said that it will increase the deficit. These cuts are to be used to finance tax breaks, including those that are skewed, to help the most privileged people in our society. This is plain wrong. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to reject these cuts. It truly is unacceptable for us as a society to sacrifice America's seniors' security and their standard of living.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 12, 1996, the Milford Fire Department will hold a testimonial dinner to honor Chief Peter Phelan who is retiring. It is with great pleasure that I salute Chief Phelan and his distinguished career of service to the Milford Fire Department. Chief Phelan's career as a firefighter began in 1944 when he joined the Milford Fire Department as a volunteer firefighter with the former Myrtle Beach Volunteer Engine Company No. 3. He was following a long family history of firefighting for the town of Milford as both his father and grandfather had served in the same company. Chief Phelan was permitted to join even though he was only 17 years old and still in high school at the time. World War II had created a manpower shortage within the fire department so the chief's young age was overlooked. In November of 1948 Chief Phelan was appointed to the Career Department. He left briefly from 1951 to 1953 to serve with distinction in the Korean conflict. The chief's early career included work with the late Fire Chief Richard Coley to reorganize the old civil defense programs into the Milford Civil Preparedness Agency. Chief Phelan was responsible for preparing plans to put the city of Milford in line for Federal grant programs. In 1966, Chief Phelan was promoted to the rank of lieutenant. He was promoted again in 1967 to the newly established rank of captain. The chief became a battalion chief in 1972 and, in 1977, became the assistant chief/fire marshal. When the department was reorganized, he was named assistant chief/operations. On January 1, 1996, he was appointed to the office of fire chief. Chief Phelan has earned a number of awards during the course of his career. The most outstanding awards are the Ryder Fireman of the Year Award and a bronze medal from the Connecticut Humane Society for his part in the rescue of a handicapped person from the second floor of a burning building. These awards illustrate Chief Phelan's dedication to firefighting and the safety of the residents of Milford. He is without doubt one of Milford's most important public servants. In addition to his involvement with a number of community organizations, Chief Phelan has served as chairman of the Connecticut Fire Marshal's Association's Annual Educational Seminar for the past 15 years. He is also a member of the New England Division of the International Association of Fire Chiefs and was a member of the first group of the Fairfield County Arson Task Force. He is a past president of the Connecticut State Fireman's Association, has served as president of the Connecticut Fire Marshal's Association and has been a member of the board of directors of the New England Fire Marshals Association and the New Haven County Fire Chiefs Emergency Plan. I am so pleased to join Chief Phelan's colleagues at the Milford Fire Department, his wife Catherine, and his children and grandchildren in congratulating him on his retirement. His departure is a great loss to the town of Milford and the Fire Department. I thank Chief Phelan for a lifetime of extraordinary service to the public and wish him enjoyment in his retirement.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership, and I rise in support of the Durbin-Hansen amendment because it is time to stop spending the taxpayers' hard-earned money to subsidize a product that kills over 1,000 Americans every single day. Each year more than 400,000 people die prematurely of tobacco use. As my colleague from Delaware pointed out, cigarettes kill more Americans each year than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicide, illegal drugs, and fires combined. Fifty billion dollars is spent on health care related to tobacco use. Despite all that we know about the health hazards of tobacco, too many of our young people, especially the young ones, continue to light up. In my own State of Connecticut, one out of three 9th through 12th graders have smoked a cigarette in the past month. About one out of five 9th through 12th graders smoke regularly. More preschoolers in this country recognize Joe Camel than they do Mickey Mouse. We have a problem in this country. And industry, like big tobacco, that can find the money to run ads so convincing to appeal especially to young people about the glamour of tobacco surely does not need taxpayers' money. About 3,000 young people across the Nation under age 18 become regular smokers every day. On average, they start smoking at age 14. Tragically, one out of three of these teenagers will die of a tobacco- related illness. We must stop this killing of our family members and our friends. I am doing all I can to prevent these tragic deaths. At home I started a campaign called Kick Butts Connecticut, targeted at middle and elementary school kids to prevent them from ever starting to smoke. More than 80 percent of all adult tobacco smokers had tried smoking before their 18th birthday and more than half of them had already become regular smokers by that age. Studies show that if people do not begin smoking as teenagers or as children, it is very unlikely that they ever will do so. I think public education campaigns are vital to the war that we are waging against cancer in this country. We truly do need to do more if we are to cut the number of tobacco-related deaths in this country. And despite the deadly impact of tobacco, some have argued that we cannot simply abandon our Nation's tobacco farmers. This amendment does not abandon them. It takes the $25 million in savings from the elimination of the tobacco subsidy and puts it into productive uses in agricultural regions all over this country. The money saved would be used to improve water and wastewater for development purposes, expand the use of technology and advance education and medicine in rural areas. These funds would create great alternatives for struggling areas of our country, without relying on taxpayer-funded subsidies to promote an industry that kills. This appropriations bill, like all appropriations bills, is really about out Nation's priorities, and I do not understand how we can support the tobacco subsidies in this bill and at the same time are proposing in other areas to gut and decimate Medicare. Mr. Chairman, we have the opportunity today to send a very clear message to the cigarette industry and to the grim reaper, big tobacco. Let us stop wasting taxpayers' money to promote an industry that has been truly so costly to this Nation. It is time that big tobacco learned to get along in this business without the taxpayers' hard- earned dollars. It is time that we get the tobacco industry off of the Federal Treasury, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the House was scheduled to vote on the 1997 budget yesterday but the vote was delayed at the last minute. It seems that the Republican budget, by their own admission, actually increases the Federal deficit. And freshman Republicans, many of whom campaigned back home for a balanced budget and many of whom voted for the balanced budget amendment, balked at voting for a budget that is not balanced. But today the Republican leadership has twisted enough arms and many of these same freshmen will support a budget that does exactly what they promised they would not do when they came to Washington: increase the deficit. What hypocrisy. And yet these same Republicans want the American people to trust them when they say their budget does not cut the Medicare program by $168 billion over a 6-year period to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. Do not be fooled. This budget is bad for seniors and bad for the deficit.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today is Bob Dole's last day in the U.S. Senate. I would like to salute the legacy of outstanding public service that Bob Dole has given to this great country of ours. While it is his last day, I truly do understand why he would like to depart the Congress of the United States. If we take a look at what has occurred in the 104th Congress, we can get some idea why anyone would want to distance themselves from this failed 104th Congress. The gridlock strategies that have been imposed by the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, have led to the dubious distinction for the GOP- controlled 104th Congress as the least productive Congress since World War II. By any measure, the 104th Congress has been a failure. This lack of productivity of this Congress has been noted by neutral commentators. Helen Dewar of the Washington Post has written, ``Their ambitions have far outstripped their legislative achievements, resulting in one of the least productive sessions in modern history, a session long on promise and short on results.'' Similarly Kevin Phillips, who is a partisan, a Republican analyst, has noted, ``The 104th Congress may be the worst in 50 years.'' First we can examine the number of bills that have been enacted, and as of June 11 this Dole-Gingrich Congress has enacted a total of 150 public laws, the lowest total at this point in the Congress going back to World War II. Second, not only have they failed to pass a number of laws, but what they have succeeded in doing is doing harm to men, women, and children in this country. If we do not want to take a look at the numbers and numbers of laws that have been passed, that is fair. But what we do need to do is take a look at policy, and what kind of policy have they implemented and what kind of policy have they tried to derail. Let us take a look at that. By pursuing an extremist agenda, the Dole-Gingrich Congress has failed to deliver any kind of results to the American people. Specifically, no health insurance reform, no minimum wage increase, no balanced budget, no expansion of access to educational opportunity, as a matter of fact, cutting off avenues of educational opportunity to young men and women in this country and cutting a school loan program. I could not have gone to college without student loans. Why do others who have them and had them in coming here want to let them go for others in this country? No welfare reform. No tax cuts. No improvements in pension security, and no improvements in environmental protection. Let me tell my colleagues one specific area in which they will do and are contemplating doing great harm to the American public, and that is in the area of Medicare and Medicaid, hurting seniors in this country. All they are asking, after a lifetime of work and playing by the rules, is a decent and a dignified and a secure retirement. Today on this floor we will discuss a budget resolution that has come back after being debated by the House and the Senate, and the stakes are high in this debate today because Medicare and Medicaid are going to be cut in a sweeping way if the Republican majority has its way, if Mr. Gingrich has his way. Today 37 million seniors depend on Medicare, and we in the Congress have a solemn obligation to make sure that they can count on it. Medicare must be protected. Medicare and Medicaid once again are on the chopping block, with a $168 billion cut in the Medicare Program, $72 billion in the Medicaid Program. Let me just say that today 99 percent of our seniors are covered through the Medicare Program. They have health insurance because of Medicare. There are people here who would tell you they are not going to cut this program, and in fact that is precisely what they are going to do. They are going to remove the restrictions that are now placed on doctors and hospitals, where they cannot overcharge seniors. Those will be gone. I implore the American public, listen to the debate today, and do not allow this Gingrich Congress to do harm to seniors in this country.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 11, 1996, Casa Otonal will celebrate its 20th anniversary by honoring four of its founders. It is with great pleasure that I rise today to salute Casa Otonal and congratulate all those who have made this amazing organization possible. The original mission of Casa Otonal was to offer inner city youth an alternative to the streets by providing educational and other activities. It has since expanded its mission and now provides a very successful senior center, a housing complex and a community center, Casa Linda. Casa Otonal begun in 1974 at St. John the Evangelist Church. While still in the space at St. John's, Casa Otonal was designated a senior center and a nutrition center. This began Casa Otonal's mission of enabling senior citizens, particularly Hispanics, to maintain cultural ties and personal dignity and to remain self-sufficient. The Casa Otonal program continued to expand and identified one of the most important needs of the elderly, housing. In July 1986, an elderly housing complex with 105 units was completed. The result of this expansion is two distinct projects, the senior center and residential facility. The senior center provides social and recreational activities, the nutrition program and continues to reach out to all the elderly in the city of New Haven. Other programs for seniors include adult education, health services, transportation, cultural programs, and workshops. The Casa Linda community center offers a unique opportunity for the elderly and young people to interact and enjoy and learn from each other. Casa Linda opened in 1992 with the philosophy that the elderly could teach children past values, skills, and traditions. The center has been incredibly successful in encouraging this coming together of the generations. I am so pleased to join Casa Otonal in honoring its founders. Linda Kantor and Jim Vlock were instrumental in obtaining the Housing and Urban Development grant for Casa Otonal and saw the project through to its completion. Linda, in particular, has put her heart and soul, and a great deal of time and energy into Casa Otonal and Casa Linda. Using her own money and some private contributions, Linda purchased the property across from Casa Otonal for the construction of Casa Linda. She renovated the building with the help of volunteers. Casa Otonal is also honoring cofounder Joseph Odell and Patricia McCann Vissepo. Joseph, who spent 18 years working in urban ministry, was vital to the conception of the idea of a residential housing complex for Hispanic elderly. Patricia joined the board of Casa Otonal in 1984 as the complex was being constructed. She became board president in 1987 and in 1993 the board invited her to become the executive director of Casa Otonal. I am delighted to be able to offer my congratulations to all those involved with Casa Otonal and Casa Linda on the 20th anniversary. Both organizations are vital to the Hispanic community and foster a sense of family, history, culture, and tradition. The work of Casa Otonal and Casa Linda make the city of New Haven a richer, better place to live.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today will be remembered as a sad day in this Congress, a day when we missed an opportunity to help millions of working families. Once again congressional Republicans serve up legislation to help wealthy special interests. This bill, which started off as a good bipartisan bill that would have helped working families, people who move from job to job, to maintain their health insurance, prohibit preexisting condition, add parity for mental illness, this bill has been hijacked by Speaker Gingrich and by Majority Leader Dole. Under the banner of reform, the House passed a bill that raises health care costs, hurts consumers and increases the number of uninsured. By including medical savings accounts, skimming the healthy and the wealthy out of the traditional insurance pool, we will see in fact insurance costs go up. Do not take my word for it. Take the American Academy of Actuaries, not a liberal group by any stretch of the imagination. They estimated that this skimming process would result in a 61 percent increase in health care premiums for those who remain in traditional plans. Let me tell my colleagues why do we have such bad policy here in the House. We will find out in a second here when we know that the company that provides most of these medical savings accounts, the Golden Rule Insurance Co., has been the third largest donor to Republican political campaigns, more than a million dollars to the Republican Party over the last 4 years. That is why we see this addition to this bill. Sadly, this is a bad piece of legislation. Let me repeat, under the banner of reform this bill as passed will raise health care costs. It hurts consumers and it will increase the number of uninsured. We had a wonderful opportunity to pass help for working families in this country. Because of special interests, the Republican majority has denied that opportunity to working families today.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on June 8, the First Calvary Baptist Church will celebrate its 10th anniversary. It is with great pleasure that I rise today to celebrate this vital and thriving congregation. The First Calvary Baptist Church was founded in 1986 by the Reverend Boise Kimber. From the beginning the church has overcome a number of obstacles. The church's first worship service was held on June 1, 1986. However, the church was without a formal place of worship and had to hold services at the Holiday Inn in New Haven. Services were then moved to the Yale University Dwight-Battell Chapel. On July 20, 1986, the church officially opened its doors to new members. The last service to be held at the Dwight-Battell Chapel was on August 24, 1986. Services were then temporarily moved back to the Holiday Inn. It was then that the congregation's prayers were answered and they were able to hold worship services at the Church of God and Saints of Christ. The First Calvary Baptist Church has always made youth outreach an important part of its mission. The first Sunday school classes were held on September 14, 1986. The Youth in Action Program began on March 5, 1987. The program gave youth an opportunity to participate in topics that concerned the church and community. The church also runs Bible study classes. This dedication to the education and participation of church youth is one of the foundations of the church. In addition to reaching out to the young members of the congregation, the church has maintained a deep commitment to the community. In particular, the church has focused attention on a number of social problems and taken action to help those in need in the area. A food pantry is operated by the congregation and they also participate in the Food Share Program. The church also invites a variety of national figures to speak to the community on social issues. For example, speakers have addressed issues like unemployment, the welfare of children, and violence among youth. There are a number of ways the congregation stays in touch with their spirituality and history. Every year revivals are held to, in the words of church members, ``keep our souls regenerated and focused on the Lord.'' The church also holds an annual memorial service for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate the many hardworking members of the First Calvary Baptist Church congregation on this anniversary. I am sure there will be many more anniversaries to celebrate as the congregation is sure to keep the church growing. I commend the First Calvary Baptist Church for its dedication to the community and its commitment to the spiritual well-being of its youth and congregation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey for all of his efforts on the issue of Medicare-Medicaid and more generally for the whole issue of working families in this country and what they are going to be faced with if some of the cuts are made; and particularly in the Medicare Program you said something at the outset of your remarks, I think I just want to expand on it a second. Today, 99 percent of seniors have health care, health insurance. That was not the case before Medicare. Now what happened before Medicare was that families had to take care of their loved ones, as families will do, because there was no opportunity to have health care coverage, so you went in with your children. What is one of the big issues that we are very, very concerned about today if we are going to see these incredible cuts in Medicare and in Medicaid, which as my colleague knows, that takes care of about two- thirds of the costs of Medicaid, has to do with seniors who are in nursing homes. In my State of Connecticut almost 70 percent of the seniors who are in nursing homes, getting nursing home care, that care is paid for in part or in whole by the Medicaid system. So that if today, if these programs are unraveled, if we do not--we need to fix them, but if we destroy them the way it is being suggested by our Republican colleagues, then this is not only an issue for older Americans, it is an issue for their families. I have a mother who is 82 years old, and, you know, thank God and knock on wood, she is in good health. I am not going to let my mom go without health care if somehow Medicare is unraveled and less people are being covered or it is more expensive for her to be able to get health care coverage. That is going to be my responsibility. I am an only child. I am going to make sure my mom has the best health care that is possible. So this is a system that has not been created for seniors, people who are over 65. This is meant to be first-rate health care so in fact there can be that dignified, secure and decent retirement for seniors without--and that maintenance of their independence--without having to have them be dependent on their families. And I think younger people are very concerned about what happens here as well. Another point that my colleague made that I just want to talk about is no one has ever suggested, and the trustee's report did come out, as it did last year, and they confirmed what truly has been known for more than 6 or 8 months, that the fund will be exhausted by the year 2001. The fact of the matter is that no one has ever suggested that we do not fix the Medicare Program. We could have a bipartisan commission, the same way that we did with Social Security, to allow so that we insure the solvency of the Social Security system; we could do the same kind of thing today. however, yesterday the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader of the House of Representatives, on a television show said ``no to a bipartisan commission to look at the long-term solvency of the Medicare system.'' It was just last year in February, in 1995, that the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means introduced the bill that would have appropriated $90 billion, which was the amount of money that the trustees that our Republican colleagues are holding up their report, but it was the trustees last year who said $90 billion could deal with the solvency of the Medicare Program. Well, there was a bill on this floor. We got a chance to vote. That is the beauty of this place: We vote. And 233 Republicans said thumbs down, no, to insuring the solvency of the Medicare system through the year 2006. So, they are a little bit disingenuous when they are holding up the report here, because we have known what the issue is going to be. Now, if we are going to fix the program, if we are going to fix this program, I just submit to my colleague, and you brought up two of the quotes that were not made, I mean that are just unbelievable in terms of where people want to see the Medicare Program going. But if you want to fix the program, and we agree that it needs to get fixed, into whose hands do you want to entrust this program to be fixed? Do you want to go to Bob Dole, the current Presidential candidate for the Republican Party, who is proud of his vote against Medicare? He cheers and lauds the fact that he voted against it, it is a program that does not work. Now that, I mean it tells you something about into whose hands you want to trust it. Into Mr. Gingrich's hands, who says that he wants to see it wither on the vine, to go one step further? Now we are talking about leadership here; we are not talking about any comment made on the floor of the House. These are the people who have taken on the leadership of the Republican Party and who want the opportunity to lead the country. They do not believe in the Medicare program. Let me give you one further; again, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey]. This was July 11, 1995: ``Medicare is a program I would have no part of in a free world.'' Again in July 1995: ``Hundreds of thousands of seniors rely on Medicare; I am sorry they do, but they do.'' Again I mention Mr. Armey, who does not want to see a bipartisan commission to do something about the long-term solvency of the system. Let me have one more quote from the budget director, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], who said again in February 1995 that their budget, the Republican budget, quote, ``would require Medicare cuts unlike any this town has ever seen before.'' Now, the numbers are not so much the issue, as my colleague from New Jersey pointed out. The issue is Medicare or no Medicare and the policies that the Republican proposals, if they were enacted, what they do to the Medicare system. They do not control costs. They shift the costs to seniors by encouraging doctors, as my colleague pointed out, to charge seniors extra billions for the basic Medicare package. They herd seniors into managed care plans without adequate consumer protections. They destroy the Nation's safety net and academic research hospitals. They spend an extra $4.6 billion on the medical savings account that my colleague pointed out are for the wealthy healthy, and they weaken, something that is not talked about too much, major antifraud loss. The dollar difference is significant, but more significant is the policy difference, and, as you pointed out, the difference in the dollars is not to make the Medicare Program solvent, but in fact to deal with tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Let me just make one more point because I think it is important. This is something that a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about all the time. They talk about only in Washington is an increase a cut and that there is not a cut in the Medicare Program. Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. I want to quote the Speaker of the House, again, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich]. This has to do with the defense budget. This was in 1987. ``The 4-year budget includes a 10-percent real cut in defense spending.'' This is Newt Gingrich describing a decline in the rate of growth of the defense budget in 1987. They are going to stand here and tell us that this is slowing the rate of growth. It is just a boondoggle. There is no accounting for the increased numbers of the people who enter the Medicare system, there is no accounting for inflation, and there is no accounting for the increased costs in medical care. So they tell us that we need $150. We have $100 today, we need $150 in order to take care of the increase of people, the increase in inflation and the increase in technology, but they are going to give us $125 and they will tell us that it is not, in fact, when we need $150 to make it, except they are willing to say that when it comes to the defense budget, which they have talked about, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], in 1987. The chairman of the defense authorization bill says that ``The bill provides $2.4 billion more than the current fiscal year, but when adjusted for inflation, it reprsents a real decline of 1.5 percent in spending, and not an increase.'' You cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth. These are real cuts in Medicare, real pain in the Medicaid system. What we cannot allow that to do is to happen. We have to make the same kind of fight, the same kind of arguments that we did in the last year of this Congress, so that in fact they cannot destroy a system which they truly do not believe in. I think my colleague for letting me join with him this afternoon in this special order.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, on that point what is really important to know, and truly people know, today doctors do, doctors and hospitals, there are restrictions on this overcharging. what is very central and very simple here is those restrictions are eliminated. They are eliminated, so therefore they cannot do the overcharging. Just a final number which I think is important on this inflation issue, when they keep talking about how these are not cuts, what they are doing with Medicare is they are holding it at about 16 percent below the rate of inflation. That represents a real decline. That is no increase. We cannot let them get away with talking about these as not being cuts, because the numbers are real. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, once again House Speaker Newt Gingrich has gone too far. He is alleging that the Commerce Department workers might have shredded documents after Secretary Brown's fatal crash in Croatia and that the staff delayed reporting this airplane crash with 26 incredible Americans on board. According to Gingrich's staff, the Speaker is, and I quote, ``Suggesting there might have been a coverup to get rid of Brown's papers after he died.'' This is extreme. It is irresponsible. It is not the behavior of a congressional leader. When questioned about it, the Speaker's office responded, and I again quote, ``I think they are serious allegations, if subsequent facts support them, if subsequent facts support them, I think it is something other news outlets ought to look at and other agencies.'' In other words, we are going to make an outrageous allegation and then we are going to hope that eventually someone comes up with the facts to support it. Has not the family of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown suffered enough? Speaker Gingrich, who did not even attend the funeral, owes the Brown family a public apology for making this irresponsible and fictional allegation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today the Medicare Board of Trustees released their annual report on Medicare. Not surprisingly, the trustees' report says that if nothing is done, the Medicare Trust Fund will run out of money by the year 2001. We have expected this news. In fact, it is why last October the Democrats offered an amendment that contained $90 billion in Medicare reforms over a 7-year period. The amendment would have extended the life of the Medicare Trust Fund through the year 2006 and would have remedied the problem. Mr. Speaker, although the contents of the report were not surprising, the response of the Republican Party and its leadership to the report has been incredible. If it was not so ridiculous, it would be downright funny. The Republicans have spent a lot of time this week running around Washington and playing the blame game. They are blaming the media, they are blaming the Democrats, and they are blaming the people who are on Medicare. The House majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, Dick Armey, has said, and I quote: Hundreds of thousands of seniors rely on Medicare. I'm sorry they do, but they do. But, Mr. Speaker, this is no laughing matter. Last October, House Republicans had a chance to vote, to vote to fix the Medicare problem. Over 233 of them, let me say it again, over 233 of House Republicans voted no. Soon there will be a list of those 233 so that the public can see who they are. Now they are acting like they just found out that there is a problem; but the fact is last October they resoundingly rejected an opportunity to reach an agreement with congressional Democrats on $90 billion in Medicare savings that would have extended the solvency of the program through 2006. But why should that surprise us? In the same month that he voted against fixing Medicare, House Speaker Newt Gingrich has said, ``No, we do not want to get rid of it in round one because we don't think that is the right way to go through a transition, but we believe it is going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it.'' In order to encourage them the Republicans have proposed cutting $168 billion from the Medicare Program over the next 6 years. In fact, as early as February of 1995, the gentleman from Ohio, John Kasich, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and his staff knew that their budget, again, ``would require Medicare cuts unlike any this town has ever seen before.'' Why such a large cut? These cuts are not going to be used to extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. In fact, the original Republican Medicare cuts were about three times any estimate of what was needed to keep the program solvent. The truth is that the Republicans need to cut Medicare in order to pay for a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, $180 billion in a tax break. Last September the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour reported a private meeting between the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, and the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Kasich]. Mr. Gingrich told the gentleman from Ohio that the only way to balance the budget in 7 years and to give a tax break was to cut Medicare. The cuts advocated by the Republican leadership could result in a second-rate health care system for our Nation's seniors, a system where the elderly will be asked to pay more and to get less. The plan would allow the health care plans to overcharge seniors, to charge them more, reduce choice, increase costs, close rural hospitals, or drastically reduce the services that hospitals offer. Where are our priorities, Mr. Speaker? The Republicans want to cut Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy, when we should be honoring a lifetime of hard work with a secure and a dignified retirement. In the end, the Republicans keep laughing, and the joke is on the American people and on seniors across this great country of ours who depend on Medicare for their livelihood and for their future. We can fix Medicare. We can do that, and we need to do that. That is not the issue. But the fact of the matter is that the Republicans would like to see Medicare fundamentally changed. Who do you trust to fix the Medicare Program, the people who have said that they want to see it wither on the vine, that they would be proud to have voted against it; the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], who says he does not want to see a bipartisan commission to fix the Medicare Program? The American public needs to understand what is at stake once again.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, despite what my Republican colleagues are saying this morning, in October 1995, last October, 233 House Republicans voted against a bill which contained $90 billion in Medicare reforms over 7 years which would have extended the solvency of the Medicare Program to the year 2006. Let me just tell my colleagues that their new plan will cut $168 billion from Medicare over a 6-year period of time, and what they will do with that by their own words is pay for a $176 to $180 billion tax break for the richest Americans. Speaker Gingrich has said that these are not cuts. He said this on Sunday on ``Meet the Press.'' But let me inform my colleagues what his colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] the budget chairman has said in 1995. I quote: ``Their budget would require Medicare cuts unlike any this town has ever seen before.'' Indeed, that is what they are about. Do not be fooled, American people. Speaker Gingrich has said in the past he wants Medicare to wither on the vine. We must not let him do it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 234, the Boating and Aviation Safety Act. The bill amends Federal bankruptcy law to ensure financial responsibility for individuals who cause deaths or injuries by operation of a boat or aircraft while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Specifically, the measure prohibits bankruptcy courts from discharging an individual's debts for wrongful death or injuries if caused by the individual's operation of a motor vehicle, boat, or aircraft while intoxicated. This legislation is extremely important to residents of my district, many of whom live on the shoreline of the Long Island Sound. Boating accidents are an unfortunate reality on a highly active waterway. As the summer boating season begins, it is essential to provide the victims of preventable boating accidents the same recourse for reckless piloting of boats on our waters as any victim of a accident in a car. This important legislation would extend the bankruptcy law that pertains to operators of motor vehicles to operators of boats and aircraft. This is a matter of fairness. While some bankruptcy courts have used a broad interpretation of the motor vehicle to include operators of aircraft and boats in cases of injury or death to others due to intoxication, some have not. In order to ensure justice to the victims of boating accidents and their families we must pass this measure today. We must send a strong message to boat operators: If you drink and operate a boat you are going to face the same harsh punishment that you would if you drink and drive. I strongly support this bill and urge its immediate adoption.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week, in a room off the floor, House Republicans could take a minute out of their day and have their picture taken with a senior citizen and a sign that read something like this: ``I am friendly to seniors.'' It was a staged photo opportunity and, in fact, it was and is phony. Since taking control of the Congress, the Republicans have waged an all-out assault against seniors. Their new budget cuts $169 billion from Medicare in order to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. Today's Washington Post says the current Medicaid proposal from the GOP would ``turn Medicaid over to the States. It would allow States to levy copayments and other charges on certain Medicaid recipients.'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, seniors could be forced to pay for services that they receive now. And it means extra bills for many who are on fixed incomes. Republicans have consistently targeted seniors for budget cutbacks while setting aside hefty tax breaks for the wealthy. With a track record like that, it is no wonder that the Republicans have had to stage photo ops. Better to hide behind a Kodak moment than to face how your policies have affected this Nation's seniors.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. It is a pleasure to join my colleagues here tonight, and I just like to pick up a comment that our colleague from Michigan pointed out, and that is, if you need to put the Medicare debate in a context, we live in a great country, we really do, and in 1965 we passed a Medicare system. As a matter of fact as an aside, it was the current Republican candidate for President, Bob Dole, who said that he was proud of his vote back then and he voted against Medicare because he did not believe that it was a system that worked. And we ought to keep that in mind. This was not a comment that he did not believe it would work in 1965. In 1996, when he was running for President of the United States, he does not believe that this is a system that works. We ought to keep that squarely in mind. But the fact is that it was passed, and it was a stroke of genius in terms of health care for seniors in this country. Before Medicare, less than 50 percent of seniors in this Nation had health care coverage in any way. Today, 99 percent of seniors are covered. They have health care. They do not have to worry that they are going to be wiped out because of an illness that they did not create but they were unfortunate enough to get. I think we need to talk about this debate on Medicare and Medicaid in the context of what this system has meant to people in this country. As my colleagues have pointed out, last year in the Republican budget they intended to make a $270 billion cut in Medicaid to pay for tax breaks, $245 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest in this country. What happened around the Nation, the hue and cry of seniors, of their families, of people who believed that this was the wrong thing to do, stopped them from doing the kinds of things that my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, has pointed out in his chart. What they wanted to do was to double the premiums, to increase the copayments, increase the deductibles, do away with choice, make it more difficult for hospitals, make it more difficult for rural areas. Quite frankly, we thought we had beat back the barbarians. But instead, what we see is in the 1997 budget the very same set of premises, the very same policy being brought forward again. This is a new budget, but it is the same set of policies with regard to Medicare and Medicaid and the same sweeping and dangerous cuts. To quote the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrich, he said ``We can't do it all at once.'' The goal for Mr. Gingrich, he would like to see Medicare wither on the vine, but ``we can't do it all at once. We need to do it in pieces.'' So we tried in 1995 and we got pushed back, so we are going to try again in 1996, and God help us in 1997, because it will come back again. The Republicans got a little trickier this time in this budget. They learned a lesson: Don't let anything sit around for too long so that the American public has some time to notice what is going on and to learn about it, because if they learn about it and they know about it, they are very smart and they will rise up and they will say that we are not going to do this. Sixty percent of the public said to the President of the United States that they wanted him to veto that budget because it contained these kinds of Medicare cuts. This new budget, and I put ``new'' in quotes, moved through this House in a week, moved through this House in 1 week because they knew that if they let it stay around long enough, we would see the exact same set of premises, the exact same policy with regard to Medicare and Medicaid that they tried to impose on the American public in the last budget, last year. It is $168 billion in Medicaid and Medicare cuts this time around. It is done in 6 years versus 7 years. It would have sliced 19 percent last year from Medicare. This year it is 17 percent, a 2 percent difference. The American public should not be fooled. It is the exact some policy. Let us contrast the cut with the amount of the tax break for the wealthy. It is $168 billion in a tax cut in Medicare and it is $176 to $180 billion in a tax break that will benefit the wealthiest in this country. It is the same exact equation that was set up in the last budget. The public should not be fooled. If we move to Medicaid, or as my colleagues has pointed out, in these areas we have the same things that exist. The restrictions that are now on doctors and hospitals not to overcharge people beyond what Medicare will take care of will be removed: increased bills, out-of-pocket costs for seniors; nursing home standards not enforced. And we know what that means in the quality of life and the quality of care for those we love who go into nursing homes. We know also what they want to do to spouses and children in being able to attack their assets. The long and the short of it is that we are going to make this fight day in and day out in the next several weeks, in the next several months, because the public should not be fooled by the same set of policies that would foist upon American seniors a second-rate health care system. It is wrong, it is unfair, it is not what this Nation is about. It is not what our values are. It is not what our priorities are. We are going to make the same fight and the same cases that we did over the last several months. This is not going to rest until we turn this policy around and do what is right and do what is best for America's seniors and the American people.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, last week after much pushing, prodding, and pulling, the House passed an increase in the minimum wage. This past weekend what I heard over and over from the residents of Connecticut's Third District, which I represent, was: ``Finally. What took so long?'' Madam Speaker, the American people want us to continue to focus on policies that protect their families, honor their work, and safeguard the future for their children, but they want these policies to move through this Congress faster and with less political posturing. The American people want retirement security, so let us make pensions portable. They want health care reform, so let us cover preexisting conditions. They want a balanced budget, but they do not want us to raid the Medicare system. I challenge the Republican leadership to listen to what the American people are saying. They want to see that Medicare is preserved and not destroyed, and that we do not provide a tax break for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of seniors who have played by the rules all their lives, and all they want is a decent, safe, and a dignified retirement.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I believe hardworking Americans deserve a raise, and the people's House should increase the minimum wage. I thought we finally would have a chance to raise the minimum wage, as four out of five Americans want us to do. After calling for hearings, stalling for months, and appalling statements by the majority leader, who said that he would oppose the minimum wage with, and I quote, every fiber of his being, I thought that the Republican leadership would finally allow a clean vote on providing a needed raise for American workers. But the Republican leadership has chosen to poison the minimum wage increase with the Goodling amendment, a distasteful amendment to repeal the minimum wage for millions of American workers. The amendment not only repeals the minimum wage guarantee for workers at two-thirds of firms in the United States, 10 million people, it also rolls back the Fair Labor Standards Act, and it opens the door to cruel sweatshops that should have been left behind decades ago. Mr. Speaker, I know something about sweatshops. My mother, who is 82 years old, worked in a sweatshop for many years. Fortunately, the people of this country rejected such working conditions, and they did that decades ago. I watched her work over that sewing machine with other women and they pumped out those dresses to provide an income for their families. But the extreme agenda of the Gingrich revolution would roll back the clock to those bad old days. The American people want to move forward to higher wages, to rising living standards, and to better working conditions. They do not want to go backward to a darker time in our past when fair wages and safe workplaces were at the whim of the employer. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support a real and a simple increase in the minimum wage. That is what our job is about today, to help working families in this country realize their dream, to have more change in their pockets, to be able to buy their kids an extra pair of sneakers. That is what we are about.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the other side and the gentleman who just spoke that a vote for the poison pill Goodling amendment would result in the loss of 94,150 individuals in Nebraska who would get an increase in the minimum wage.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona should be reminded that 200,000 of his workers will be denied an increase in the minimum wage if he votes for the Goodling amendment, and that two-thirds of minimum wage workers are adults; 40 percent are the principal breadwinners in the family. Let us get the facts straight on this issue.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the other side that a vote for the Goodling poison pill amendment in the State of Wisconsin would deny 210,757 workers an increase in the minimum wage. In the State of Connecticut, it would be 87,000.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman from Florida that if he votes for the Goodling amendment, this poison pill amendment, what will happen is that 675,928 workers in the State of Florida will be denied an increase in the minimum wage. He should also know, coming from Florida, that 10 percent of minimum wage workers are seniors.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to salute Albertus Magnus College on its 70th Anniversary. Albertus Magnus was founded in 1925 by the Dominican Sisters of St. Mary of the Springs, Columbus, Ohio. It was the first Catholic residential liberal arts college for women in New England. The College has established a tradition of setting precedents in educational innovation. The New Dimensions Program was established in 1994 and enables students to work and maintain family commitments while obtaining a degree in business administration in only two years. The Tri-Session Plan was implemented in 1993 and allows students to complete their degree program in three years by attending three sessions per academic year instead of two. Although the program is intense and academically rigorous, students are able to save valuable time and money. The program has been cited by leading educators as model to control the ever-rising cost of a college education. These are only two examples of the College's mission to make a liberal arts education both intellectually challenging and accessible. Throughout all the changes and reforms, Albertus Magnus has remained steadfast in its commitment to the pursuit of knowledge and the liberal arts. Albertus Magnus is dedicated to guiding undergraduates on their academic and intellectual journey. The College strives to provide students with the tools to build their own paradigm for understanding and interpreting the world. Students are taught to engage in the analytical process as they try to understand and then question traditional schools of thought. Graduates of Albertus Magnus leave with the knowledge that life is a journey and that they must never cease to question and explore what they believe to be true. I am pleased to wish Albertus Magnus congratulations on the 70th Anniversary. I am confident that under the strong leadership of President Julia McNamara the College will move into the 21st century at the forefront of education.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today the House takes up increasing the minimum wage, and, in what amounts to little more than a political dance, the Republican majority has designed the debate to ensure that we take one step forward and two steps back. By coupling an increase in the minimum wage with an amendment exempting companies with less than $500,000 annual gross sales, the Republicans have assured a minimum wage increase that is unfair and is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, if the amendment passes, 10 million hard-working Americans will be excluded from the increase, and millions more Americans already covered will lose their coverage. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] was not kidding when he said he would, and I quote, resist an increase in the minimum wage with every fiber of his being. By increasing the minimum wage and making it less available, the Republican leadership is dancing around an issue that 80 percent of the American people support. In words that Dick Armey can understand, a country music song goes: One step forward, two steps back; nobody gets too far like that.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, working Americans deserve tax relief, and I am glad to see that this bill takes needed steps in that direction. We have heard a lot in this Congress about encouraging work, a goal I strongly support, and I am happy to say that extending the targeted jobs tax credit will encourage work. This credit, now named the work opportunity tax credit, will give employers the proper incentive to hire those who might not find work otherwise. Continued education will enhance workers' skills and enable them and their companies to prosper in an ever more competitive economy. Extending the tax deduction for employer-provided educational assistance will encourage businesses and individuals to invest in the most valuable kind of capital, human capital. I also support enhanced pension security for American workers, and am glad that the bill takes steps in that direction. The bill guarantees that workers in multiemployer pension plans, such as construction workers, will not lose their pension benefits after 5 years instead of 10. The large number of workers in nonprofit organizations also will be able to take advantage of 401(k) plans. I strongly support these steps to help Americans in their retirement years, but I am concerned that these steps do not do enough to ensure that all workers will have the security they deserve after a lifetime of work. We must be fair to those working American families who are struggling harder and harder for less and less. This pension plan expands access to retirement savings but does so in a way that leaves many low-wage workers out. Let me read from the business section of today's New York Times. It says, and I quote: ``In a break from decades of pension policy, the bill would let owners reap tax benefits for themselves even if their workers do not participate.'' Helping only those at the top is not the way Congress should improve retirement security. A better and more comprehensive plan that would help all workers has been outlined by the President and I hope that as this bill moves forward, elements of the President's plan will be incorporated so that all workers may benefit. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill for its needed tax relief, but I hope that its pension provisions may be improved before becoming law.