Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the Gingrich-Armey rule to kill the minimum wage. This rule denies the people's House the ability to carry out the people's will and to raise the minimum wage. The Republican leadership called for hearings on the minimum wage, stalled for months with every procedural trick in the book. Now we see yet another trick, an amendment to increase the minimum wage will be followed by a killer amendment to make sure that millions of American workers at small firms would never see an increase come payday, and worse, some would lose the minimum-wage protection that they now enjoy. Two-thirds of the firms would be excluded, excluded from dealing with the minimum wage. The Republican leadership has been against the American workers and raising the minimum wage from the beginning. What this rule gives with one hand, it takes with the other, and then some. Not only does the rule seek to repeal the minimum wage for millions of workers, it seeks to role back the Fair Labor Standards Act and open the door to sweatshops and to child labor. The American people want to move forward to higher wages and rising living standards. This rule is wrong.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I support a repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax, but I am disappointed in how the issue was approached. I had hoped that we would not only cut this tax but that we would assure the American people that any change in the tax would ensure that the people of this Nation would have more change in their pockets. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership stood firm in their support of big oil. They missed their golden opportunities. First, in committee last week and on the floor today the leadership refused a Democratic amendment to guarantee that consumers and not the oil companies would benefit from the repeal. Second, the tax should have been paid for by reforming corporate welfare and eliminating programs like the alcohol fuel credit and the percentage of depletion for oil producers. Finally, the Republican leadership should have promised the American people that they would hold hearings, that the oil companies may have engaged in price gouging. Without these assurances, the end result is unclear. I support this because it is important for families in this country to receive a break.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this week a vote has been scheduled on raising the minimum wage. Finally. For months the Democrats have taken to the floor of the House asking the Republican leadership to schedule this vote on behalf of hardworking Americans and their families. And for the same number of months--the Republican leadership has refused. In some instances, even denying that working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour exist. Easy for them to say when you consider that since Speaker Newt Gingrich's April 17 promise to at least hold hearings on the minimum wage issue--34 days ago--he has received $15,975.24 of the taxpayers' money. Compare that to a minimum-wage worker who earns $4.25 an hour, works 40 hours a week for 52 weeks and makes a grand total of $8,840.00 for that entire year of hard work. In a month of dawdling, the Speaker has made almost twice as much as a minimum-wage worker makes in a whole year. Let's pass a minimum wage increase now, it's exactly what over 80 percent of American want us to do. They understand that this is simply the right approach to take if we are going to honor work, protect families and fight for children.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the latest round of Republican Medicare cuts. The American people rejected this extreme agenda last year, and I call on my colleagues to reject it today. The Medicare cuts contained in the Republican budget are designed to create a second-class health care system for America's seniors. Their drastic cuts are compounded by dangerous policy proposals which will truly force Medicare to ``wither on the vine,'' as the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, called for last year. Under the Gingrich budget seniors will pay more and they will get less health care. The medical savings accounts in the Republican plan will skim off the healthiest and the wealthiest individuals and threaten to leave the remaining millions of seniors vulnerable to a weakened Medicare system, while increasing their costs. The Republican plan to cut $168 billion from Medicare and $72 billion from Medicaid is far more than is necessary to ensure the solvency of the trust fund. The President's budget proves that. The President's budget makes Medicare solvent for the same number of years as the Republican budget, but does so without making such deep cuts. So why would the Republicans cut so deeply? The answer is $176 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest in our country. Mr. Chairman, the American people rejected, out of hand, the extreme agenda of the Republican resolution when Speaker Gingrich tried to take the country hostage by shutting down the Government and then going home for the Christmas vacation. Congress should not slash Medicare and Medicaid for millions of America's seniors in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest few. It was wrong last year, and it is wrong today. I call on my colleagues to reject the Republicans' failed agenda.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona can continue to try to fool the American public, when in fact if you add more seniors to the program, if you allow for inflation, the Republican budget in fact does cut Medicare for seniors. It allows them to have to pay increased deductibles and increases their medical bills, and no matter how they want to tell us that they are slowing the rate of growth, they really, truly want to see this program changed and it wither on the vine, as their leader, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], has talked about.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this year's Republican budget will hurt average Americans just as much as the one they proposed last year. Please, do not be fooled. The budget which Republicans bring to the House floor this week contains the same harsh policy, the deep cuts that hurt seniors and children and families. Last year the American public said to President Clinton, 60 percent of them said please veto this budget, as he did. The issue is not one of balanced budgets. The President has introduced a balanced budget, the Republicans have introduced a balanced budget. The question is who gets hurt in these budgets. In the Republican budget, once again we are looking at hard-working, middle-class families who are going to pay the price in this budget, and not the special interests, not the wealthiest of Americans, because, Mr. Speaker, as we will see in this Republican budget, the tax breaks for wealthy Americans add up to $176 billion and maybe even a little bit more. Is it not ironic and clearly not a coincidence that the cut in Medicare is $167 billion? The money that they cut from Medicare does not go into making Medicare a more sound and solvent system, it goes to pay for those tax breaks. Let us not let them get away with it this time like we did the last time. In addition, with regard to Medicare, what they would do is to restructure it. They will allow medical savings accounts, which the American Academy of Actuaries, no liberal group by any stretch of the imagination, says for those people who are in traditional insurance plans, they will see a 61-percent hike in their insurance premiums. They now will take those restrictions back that we have had all these years, which say that doctors and hospitals cannot charge seniors in addition to what Medicare pays for. Do not be fooled. Do not allow this budget to go through.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Bob Dole's decision to quit the Senate to campaign full time for President is like leaving the scene of an accident. Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich have been the leaders of this extremist Congress for a year and a half. Now, after 18 months of doing harm to working people in this country, cutting Medicare and Medicaid, education and the environment, Senator Dole is desperate to disassociate himself from his own party, from his own failed Congress. It is a desperate move to escape. Let me read a quote from Senator Dole in Congress Daily. He says he is leaving because he is tired of the minimum wage. ``My God. I'm tired of listening to minimum wage. Isn't there anything else in the world?'' Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Presidential candidate that on the road, on the campaign trail, 80 percent of the American people support a minimum wage increase. Seniors do not want to see the Medicare cuts for tax breaks for the wealthy. This is what candidate Dole will find on the campaign trail. He cannot escape his failed Congress.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the week of May 13-20, 1996 will officially be declared Columbus House Awareness Week. Columbus House is an organization which delivers both emergency care and shelter to the homeless and seeks to assist homeless persons in finding permanent housing. On May 19, 1996 Columbus House will honor their volunteers. Columbus House opened in 1982 and was New Haven's first shelter for homeless men and women. The original mission of the organization was to provide basic food and shelter services. However, it has since evolved and expanded. The organization now seeks to understand and address the problems that lead to homelessness. The Columbus House has been nationally recognized for innovative programs. One such program is the Length of Stay Program, in which the residents set goals for themselves and develop a timetable in which to achieve them. Columbus House also charges residents a nominal fee for their stay, a practice which promotes the ultimate goal of self-reliance. The dual mission of Columbus House is what makes it so remarkable and valuable to the New Haven community. Providing emergency housing is a crucial community service. The shelter has not only emergency shelter beds but also provides several outreach services. These include a mobile crisis van and outreach workers who try to link the mentally ill with the treatment and services they need. Columbus House aims to help residents become self-sufficient and able to maintain permanent housing. In addition to providing counseling, job training, and medical care, Columbus House strives to cultivate a sense of self-worth, self- dignity, and self-reliance in those who feel that their lives are beyond their control. It is rebuilding a resident's sense of self that is the key to the program's success. Columbus House gives residents the tools to handle life on their own and to effectively seek resolutions to their problems. The work of caring for the homeless has become increasingly difficult. Many people are no longer compassionate about the plight of the homeless and are frustrated by the many problems that come together to contribute to homelessness. I commend Columbus House for facing all the issues that surround homelessness and continuing to work every day to solve them. I am proud to join Columbus House in applauding the many volunteers who make the day-to-day operation a success. I thank Columbus House for over a decade of service to the New Haven community.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, there has been much discussion about the new Republican budget and about how moderate it is, but in fact this budget is in most ways as harsh as the budget that was proposed by the Republicans last year, and which the American public said to the President of the United States, 60 percent of them, veto this budget because it does not treat seniors well. It hurts seniors, it hurts education, it hurts the environment and it hurts those who are in nursing homes. The plain truth is that under the Republican Medicare plan, this time around, deja vu all over again, seniors end up paying more and getting less. In the end, the worst fear of all is that seniors are going to be left with a second-rate health care system. Rural hospitals are in danger of closing. Hospitals in my district came to see me in the last budget debate about their concern and their inability to be able to provide services. The Republican proposal cuts Medicare by $168 billion. My Republican colleagues say they are cutting Medicare to ensure its solvency, but in fact the President's budget protects Medicare solvency for the same number of years, but does so without making these same deep cuts. Do not believe the argument about slowing the rate of growth. If we have more seniors in the program and we have inflation costs, and we do not meet those needs and we do provide an increase, we have left these people shortchanged and some people will not get services. The Republican cuts in Medicare are unnecessary. So why are we proceeding with them? Could it be that they are cutting Medicare more than they need so that they can pay for some other things, like tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans? No coincidence, again, that their tax package is $175 billion. This budget unravels 30 years of progress in protecting our seniors. That should not surprise us. We should not pass this budget. I will finish with this quote, where we get a sense of what the Republican leadership is about. The Speaker of the House said, and I quote. ``We don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think it is politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it.'' They would like to see it wither on the vine. Medicare should wither on the vine. That is not the value, that is not the priority, that is not a safe, secure, dignified retirement for seniors in this country who have earned it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can go back to the Committee on Rules and have a vote on raising the minimum wage. Republican House leader Dick Armey is quoted in today's New York Times saying people are, and I quote, ``in a panic about raising the minimum wage.'' The Republican leader has said in the past that he will fight an increase in the minimum wage with every fiber of his being. No wonder people are in a panic about the minimum wage. Yet the Republican leadership is not in a panic about dealing with tax breaks for investors with enough money to own racehorses. Yesterday the Committee on Ways and Means took up the issue of a special tax break for wealthy racehorse owners, but Speaker Gingrich says any vote on raising the minimum wage is still weeks away, at best. This is why the hard-working families of this country do not believe that Congress is on their side, because even though the minimum wage is at a 40-year low, even though many minimum wage earners are the sole breadwinners for their families, Republicans are still stalling on bringing up a minimum wage issue for a vote. My Republican colleagues are fond of talking about family values, personal responsibility. Well, the families working for the minimum wage are working hard and taking the responsibility to stay off welfare. Somehow this Congress can find the time to help wealthy investors who can play at the track but not the time to help the hard- working men and women struggling to pay their bills and to keep their head above water. Some of my Republican colleagues have had the courage to break ranks, cosponsor a bill to raise the minimum wage. They cannot be missing in action today on this vote. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn]. We need these gentlemen. The working men and women of this country need them today. The Republican leadership of this Congress has its priorities all wrong. Stop the stonewalling, give us a vote on raising the minimum wage.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. There is no taxpayer money involved in this. The women pay for the services themselves. This was law under 7 years of the Reagan administration. This is not new policy. It goes back to what was current policy in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward]. Our amendment strikes language adopted in last year's defense bills that would prohibit privately funded abortions from being performed at overseas military hospitals. This amendment restores the right to choose for female military personnel and dependents and it ensures that they are not denied safe medical care simply because they are assigned to duties in another country. I want to emphasize several points about our amendment. First, it simply restores the previous policy that allowed women to use their own funds, let me repeat that, their own funds to pay for abortions in overseas military hospitals. Second, no medical providers will be forced to perform abortions. This amendment preserves the conscience clause that already exists in the military services. Third, this is not a new policy. Privately funded abortions were allowed at overseas military facilities from 1973 to 1988, including all but a few months of the Reagan administration, and from 1993 to 1996. I am a strong supporter of our Nation's defenses, and deeply regret that efforts to advance an extreme social agenda have jeopardized funding for important defense priorities. This amendment simply restores previous policy and assures that women who serve in the Armed Forces have access to safe medical care. I urge support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all let me just repeat, this simply restores previous policy allowing women to use their own funds. This was current law from 1973 through 1988, a full 7 years under the Reagan administration. Despite what the chairman would like to talk about in terms of new policy, this would restore us to what was current policy before the chairman introduced this into a defense authorization bill. No medical providers are forced to perform abortions. There is a conscience clause that already exists in the military services. This is about denying female members of the military and their dependents what their constitutional rights are in the United States. If we were to follow what the chairman would like us to follow in doing, we would ask women who served in the military, who give of their time, their effort, their dedication to this Nation, to park their constitutional rights at the water's edge and go to foreign stations and perform their duty without safe and adequate health care and medical care. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen]. I am delighted to have his support on this issue.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the honorable women who serve in the military need safe medical care, and they take care of this without any taxpayer expense. They pay $361 to the Office of the Treasury before any procedure. What we need to be concerned about is the health and safety of American women when they serve overseas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward], who is a cosponsor of the bill.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, first of all, once again, no personnel has to perform the procedure, because there is a conscience clause that exists. Understand that the Constitution of the United States of America allows women the right to an abortion. There is no reason why women who serve in the military have to leave their constitutional rights behind when they are sent overseas to serve this country, and they do it valiantly, and that they are not allowed to have the proper and adequate and safe health care. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], a sponsor of the bill. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the House is expected to consider another budget resolution this time around. It would seem to me my Republican colleagues would have learned a lesson from the last budget experience. At that time the American public said ``no'' to severe cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, in education, in the environment. Although we fought that battle and staved off those cuts, the congressional majority is back here again to cut Medicare. We are looking at a $168 billion cut in Medicare. Cuts of this magnitude force rural hospitals to close and will limit the ability of senior citizens to choose their own doctor. What are our priorities? What are our values in this Nation? We now have 99 percent of our seniors covered for health care through the Medicare system. Why would we want to dismantle Medicare? It was the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] who said not too long ago that what he wanted to see with Medicare was to have it wither on the vine. The money they cut from Medicare does not go into the Medicare trust fund. Do not let them kid you with that argument. What they will do is one more time pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. The tax break package is $180 billion, and the cut in Medicare is $168 billion. Understand the debate.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the Healthy Meals for Children Act and urge its immediate adoption. I applaud my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Bill Goodling, and the gentleman from California, Congressman George Miller, for their commitment to the healthy development of kids in this country, and their ability to work together in a bipartisan fashion to bring this important bill to the floor. The Healthy Meals for Children Act provides schools with more flexibility in how they meet the dietary guidelines for school meals was required by the National School Lunch Act. This bill in no way, it in no way changes the dietary guidelines or erodes the nutritional content of school breakfasts or lunches. This measure allows school administrators and food service staff to make nutritious affordable meals that our kids will eat. The school lunch program provides man of our children with the one balanced meal that they eat all day. In my home State of Connecticut this legislation will ensure more nutritious meals or over half a million children. In the largest city in my district, New Haven, CT, over half of the children in public schools qualify for either free meals or reduced priced meals through the school lunch program. Hungry or malnourished children cannot perform at their highest capability in the classroom or in their lives. By giving schools more flexibility to meet the national dietary guidelines, we are improving the health, the life and the performance of children in and out of our classrooms. Last year the congressional majority made school lunches for our Nation's kids the first item on the chopping block; and, fortunately, the American people fought back and the school lunch program was saved. I am pleased that the bipartisanship of my colleagues has produced this sensible progressive legislation which I support. My hope is that we can achieve this kind of bipartisan legislation and sensible legislation in the areas of Medicare and Medicaid and education and our environment. The Healthy Meals for Children Act is supported by the administration, the American Association of School Administrators, an the National School Board Association, among others, Passing this legislation provides food and service workers with flexibility to design meals that children will eat and that meet the dietary guidelines at the same time. I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation and urge the immediate adoption of the Healthy Meals for Children Act.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank my colleague from New Jersey.

Ms. DeLAURO. It is incredible, and this is a corollary, if you will, because we have the budget proposal now that once again makes this tremendous hit on the Medicare system, juxtaposed with the tax break for the wealthiest Americans; and then we have had an opportunity in this body over the last several months, in a bipartisan way, to look at health care reform or some first steps in terms of health care reform through the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, and the Roukema bill on the House side that deals with two important issues, the prohibition on preexisting condition and the ability for people to change jobs and still maintain health insurance; things that people would very, very much like. There again, rather than taking good pieces of legislation and trying to get them passed, and the President said he would sign the bill, and the authors of the bill said let us move forward, again very bipartisan, they add this concept that the gentleman has talked about, the medical savings account, which creams the healthy off the top, leaves the most frail, the most ill in the traditional health insurance policies, thereby taking the opportunity to bring some relief to people on health care, helping to try to then even lower the cost of health care, and what happens? More people uninsured, we drive the premiums up, and we completely reverse the intent of what we are trying to do by this concept of these savings accounts that healthy people will take advantage of. But the more sick an individual is, the more frail an individual is, they will wind up in the traditional systems. Those premiums will go up. Less people will be able to afford them. More people will be uninsured. It is quite remarkable. Then we take that and look at a budget, another one coming in where we have fought this battle and now we have to refight it, or it is just a continuation, quite honestly. It is just a continuation where we are going to see once again the medical savings accounts introduced and Medicare on the chopping block again. Again, we need to mention over and over again, people need to understand, Medicaid, a $72 billion cut. Less than what it was, no question. Nevertheless, this is a system that helps to ensure the health of seniors in nursing homes. We are going to find people who are in nursing homes now, whose families will have to make a decision to take them in or do something else in order to provide health care for them. I wanted to make one point, because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will talk about how they want to slow the rate of growth. A noble cause; one that I support, and I know my colleague from New Jersey supports. However, what they do not talk about is how many more people are going into the system every year. No accounting for that and what the increased costs are; no accounting for inflation at all. It is as if the system is dead in the water, stagnant, does not move, is not dynamic, is not fluid, and it is just where it will be today. We know that is not the case. It is not the case on anything that we deal with. It is changing. It is changing. But they try to say that they are lowering the rate of growth. We need to lower that rate of growth. I just need to make the point on this that we made in the past. Where are you and where are my Republican colleagues on lowering the rate of growth in private insurance, as we were talking about Medigap policies? Those premiums are going up. Where are we lowering the rate of growth in the cost of prescription drugs? Where are we lowering the rate of growth in other parts of the health system? Why is it that we only want to attack seniors in this process? That is, I think, a question that our colleagues have got to answer.

Ms. DeLAURO. I would like to say thank you to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], who continues to demonstrate tireless, and I mean tireless, leadership on the health care issue, and obviously as it affects America's seniors. I think we ought to be having this debate and discussion, and I am sure we will continue it. But May is Older Americans Month. I think it is a very fitting time for us to be talking about how what we do here in a budget can truly impact the lives in a very profound way of America's seniors. We saw that from last year's budget. There was an enormous outcry across this country as to what was happing to seniors. I am a little perplexed that given the outcry that we saw and the public's feelings, if you recall, the public said to the President, veto the budget. Sixty percent of the public said veto the budget that was proposed last year, because of the severe cuts in Medicare and in Medicaid, education and the environment as well, but Medicare and Medicaid, and what that meant for the lives of seniors. You are absolutely right about the article that was in the New York Times. MediGap was supposed to help to supplement Medicare. And what we are beginning to look at is the beginning, if you will. I mean, there are gaps in Medicare, therefore Medigap is to assist people. What we are looking at, instead of trying to figure out a way in which to make the Medicare system stronger, because people know that no system is perfect. And what we need to do is to make changes, to make it a better program, which we have said all along. Let us fix what is wrong with it, and let us build on it, in the sense that it has truly been a lifesaver for seniors in this country, who not too many years ago, less than half of our seniors had any kind of health care or protection at all. Today 99 percent of seniors have health care coverage, and the difference has been Medicare. Instead of taking a look at that system, where you can build on the opportunity for long-term care, for home health care, for prescription drug assistance, which we all know is truly one of the areas that affects everyone, but it affects seniors particularly, because many times what seniors do is they do not get the prescription filled. They get it half filled, or they fill it and then they go without eating for a couple of days. But in any of those circumstances, it clearly is not good for their health. So that we are now going to embark on a new budget proposal that will in fact erode this health care system that we have for seniors today, and I think we both agree and all of us who are engaged in this debate agree that the United States has the best quality health care in the world. That is not at issue. The question is its affordability and a variety of other questions. If we continue to erode the Medicare System, as is being proposed by the Republican majority in this House, we will then create a second-rate health care system for our seniors. That is not what we ought to be about. I think there are a couple of interesting things. Over this past weekend the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, attacked the Democrats on Medicare, and he told the Republican Convention that the battle over how much money should be spent on Medicare is the most important question facing voters in 1996. I think that that is probably right, because Medicare is not just a program. Medicare is not just a program. Medicare symbolizes a decent and a dignified retirement to people who have spent a lifetime playing by the rules, working hard, doing all that they can for their family, paying into a system, wanting to make sure that at the end of their lives, in the remaining years of their lives, if they need health care coverage, that they will have it, and that they are not going to get crippled financially by a particular illness. No one decides to get sick. It happens. I think that the Speaker's partisan attack is unfortunate. We disagree about Medicare but I do think, as I said, that the question of funding Medicare is a critical one. Again, this is part of our value system. Medicare is a priority, and how we define our priorities is how our values are defined and what kind of a Nation we want to try to be. That is why this issue is so critical and so important, and why we have to continue to focus our time and attention on it. If we go back to what the Speaker is talking about, it was not too many months ago where he said, and the quote is clear, that the Medicare system should wither on the vine. The majority leader in the Senate bragged about how pleased he was and how proud he was of a vote that he cast in 1965, voting against the Medicare system because it is a system that does not work. This is recent evidence of people who are in leadership positions in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, who would like to convey to the public that what they want to try to do is to slow the growth of Medicare, when in essence they do not truly believe in a Medicare system and its value and what it means in terms of a decent and secure and safe environment for seniors in this country. That is what the issue is about. That is what the debate is about. We can deal with numbers, but numbers are not at issue. With this second budget proposal that has been made, to quote Yogi Berra, it is deja vu all over again. We are going back essentially to where we were in last year's debate, and that is what the public needs to know about. We are talking about $168 billion in Medicare cuts. We are talking about roughly, once again, in terms of the debate that we had over the last year and a half almost, it is $168 billion in Medicare cuts, it is now $176 billion in a tax break for the wealthiest Americans. It is the very same debate, and that is why we have to continue to focus our time and attention on the issue. The question is, will we put hard-working families first or are we going to put special interests first? That is what the debate ultimately comes down to. Let me say to my colleague, and I know he feels the same way, if we were assured that the money that was being cut was going to go into the solvency, as they talk about, of the Medicare trust fund, we could make an argument for this. But that is not the case. That is not the case at all. The danger is that we are going to see funds for hospitals cut. In some rural parts of our country we will see that hospitals will close. Once again, deductibles will go up, premiums will go up, the choice of doctor is at risk again. So it is, in fact, the same debate all over again. We have to be tireless, in my view, as my colleague from New Jersey has said, in continuing to make the case and raising once again the profile of this issue. I compliment my colleague in visiting a senior center over the weekend and getting people to come out once again, to do the writing, to do the calling, to be engaged in signing the questionnaires, et cetera. I will be doing the same thing myself to let the people that I represent know that the battle is on once again. We have to be indefatigable. We have to be tireless, and the American public needs to speak up all over again on this issue.