Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago the Republican leader of the other body voted against the creation of Medicare, and yesterday he bragged of that vote saying that he knew it did not work, and he was proud of his vote, and he was proud that he fought against Medicare. On this side of the street, Speaker Newt Gingrich joined the trashing of Medicare, and on Tuesday he revealed the real GOP plan, to privatize Medicare. Speaker Gingrich said, and I quote, ``We didn't get rid of it in round 1 because we don't think that that's politically smart.'' 1965-1995, Republicans are closing in on their 30-year goal to end Medicare. Welcome to the Gingrich revolution.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise just to let our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, know that in his district 17,179 working families will have their taxes increased by this Republican bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues say their tax package benefits the middle class. I guess it all depends on how you define middle class. In today's Washington Post one Republican Congressman explains that GOP tax credits for people making $200,000 a year are not tax breaks for the wealthy, because people making $200,000 a year are not wealthy, they are lower middle class. The Congressman is quoted as saying: ``When I see someone who is making anywhere from $300,000 to $750,000 a year, that's middle class.'' If Republicans consider a person making $750,000 a year as middle class, I am beginning to understand how they can claim that this budget helps the middled class. In fact, by GOP calculations, Newt Gingrich might qualify for food stamps. Except there would not be food stamps, because they are being cut to help out those poor, struggling families making $750,000 a year. Welcome to the Gingrich revolution.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it defies common sense that Republicans are stripping away basic protections for elderly residents of nursing homes, under the guise of cutting the bureaucracy. The fact of the matter is that quality standards for nursing homes are not bureaucratic and onerous, they are necessary. These regulations don't tie the hands of nursing homes, they keep nursing homes from tying the hands of seniors. Now, I cannot believe that my Republican colleagues are deliberately trying to put nursing home residents at risk, so I must conclude that they simply don't understand how these regulations protect nursing home residents from neglect and abuse. So, let me explain, briefly, how they work in my home State of Connecticut. As one Connecticut official comments in this article: ``Without these standards and people to watch them, these situations will continue. That man might still be counting the dots on the ceiling.'' The Republican Medicaid plan will mean the end of uniform safety standards for nursing home residents. It will create a patchwork of standards across the country. Some States may do a great job, others may not. For nursing home patients it will be a crap shoot. The quality of your care will depend on where you live. That's wrong. Our seniors deserve better. Now, my Republican colleagues want the American people to believe that this budget package is about shared sacrifices for a noble purpose. But, there is nothing shared in this sacrifice and there is nothing noble in its purpose. This is a story from Monday's Connecticut Post which explains how these Federal protections worked for two people. It reads: Paralyzed in a car accident, a 38-year-old man lay flat on his back for four days in a Connecticut nursing home, able only to count the dots on ceiling tiles * * * In another Connecticut nursing home, an elderly man who suffered a sudden onset of dementia was overdrugged by staff to the point where he was unrecognizable and couldn't function * * * In both cases, it took intervention by state ombudsmen wielding copies of federal nursing home standards to correct the problems and protect the residents. And, there is nothing revolutionary about returning America's seniors to the health care dark ages of bed restraints and mind-altering drugs.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let me begin tonight with a quote from Hubert Humphrey, and this is something that Hubert Humphrey said in 1977, and I quote: It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. When this Congress is put to those tests, it fails miserably on all of these counts. Last week, the GOP budget ax came down on seniors; and, this week, it comes down on kids. Now, my Republican colleagues will argue that they are making tough decisions to balance that budget, that this budget represents a shared sacrifice for a noble purpose; but, folks, the sacrifice is not shared, and the purpose is not noble. There is nothing noble in asking the poor to sacrifice for the rich. There is nothing noble in asking the sick to sacrifice for the healthy. There is nothing noble in asking the weak to sacrifice for the strong. Winners in this budget are the corporations that will now be allowed to legally dodge paying taxes and the other special interest whose loopholes have been left wide open. The sacrifices in this budget come from our most vulnerable citizens: the poor, the sick, the disabled, the elderly and, yes, our children. Yesterday, the White House released a report on the impact of the Republican budget on America's children. In its analysis, the White House, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Urban Institute, looked at nine areas where kids will be asked to bear the brunt of GOP budget cuts. According to the study, the health of our children will be put in jeopardy by a combination of Medicaid cuts, the repeal--I repeat, the repeal of the vaccines for children program, and cuts in child nutrition. Consider the number of children who benefit from these programs and the number of children who stand to lose under the GOP budget. Medicaid pays for immunizations, regular checkups, and intensive care in case of emergencies for about 18 million children in America. In fact, one half of Medicaid beneficiaries are children. The Republican budget would eliminate this health care coverage for as many as 4.4 million children nationwide. Let me repeat that. Mr. Speaker, 4.4 million children nationwide would have their health care coverage eliminated. Among the children who could be denied coverage, many are disabled. This budget would deny as many as 755,000 disabled children cash benefits in the year 2002. For disabled children, Medicaid helps to pay for wheelchairs, for communication devices for therapy, for respite care for families, and for home modifications. Without this help, patients may be forced to seek institutional placement for their disabled children. The Republican budget repeals the vaccines for children program. Now, that means it cuts $1.5 billion that would otherwise provide vaccinations, immunizations for our children. As the White House was releasing its findings yesterday, I was visiting with administrators and the staff in New Haven, CT at the Children's Hospital, Yale University's Children's Hospital. I was there to brief them on the budget process and to better understand how Medicaid cuts would impact their young patients. The health care professionals that I visited with told me that they do not know how they are going to provide the same level of care for our children if Medicaid is cut back by 20 to 30 percent, as the Republican budget proposes. Let me talk a little bit about Connecticut. Connecticut health care providers have every single right to be concerned about children in our State, because 14 percent of them, of our children, rely on Medicaid for their basic health needs. And according to the study that was released yesterday, the Republican budget cuts will hit Connecticut children hard. Let me repeat some of those cuts for Connecticut children, the cuts that I talked to the Yale Children's Hospital about yesterday. Medicaid pays for basic health services for 166,000 children in the State of Connecticut. The budget would eliminate Medicaid coverage for as many as 57,983 children in the State of Connecticut. It will deny as many as 4,000 disabled children in Connecticut cash benefits in the year 2002. Mr. Speaker, the dean of the Yale School of Medicine, Dr. Joseph Warshaw, was at this meeting yesterday; and I would like to quote Dr. Warshaw. And the quote is, ``If we abandon this safety net, the kids are really going to suffer.'' I am not making that up. You can see that quote in the New Haven Register today. The vice president for administration spoke up and talked about how the hospital would certainly accept all those children who were faced with a health care problem and would not want to deny them any health care, but they were going to be faced with how they were going to try to have to deal with the level of services they may have to and how they would probably have to cut back on services. Kids are really going to suffer. That is a pretty strong statement. And let me be very honest with you. That statement does not come from a Democratic Member of the House of Representatives, and I am a Democratic Member of the House of Representatives. It does not come from someone with any kind of a partisan interest in this debate. It comes from a health care provider who understands what these cuts in Medicaid will mean in real terms to the children that he sees every single day at this hospital. Our debate on the magnitude of these Medicaid cuts is about more than ideology. It is about more than a political philosophy. It is more than an intellectual or an academic exercise. That is not what this is all about. It is about reality and real people. It is about the reality that these deep Medicaid cuts are going to hit kids, kids in this country, kids in the State of Connecticut, very, very hard. And that is why tonight some of us are here as we stand with these photographs of American families that rely on Medicaid for their basic health care needs. I would like to just introduce you to one family and tell you their story in their own words. A mother from Illinois tells us how Medicaid has helped her to earn her nursing degree without putting her children's health at risk. This is a quote. In December of 1996, I will graduate with an associate degree in nursing and a lot of [[Page H 10700]] pride knowing that I am fully capable of supporting my family. I would not be in this position today if public aid was not there to bridge the gap of no medical coverage. That was signed by Kathy Davis, and these are Kathy Davis' children. Kathy Davis does not want a handout. She wants a helping hand. Here is a woman who is doing all the right things trying to provide for her family, build a better future for these two youngsters in this photograph. The Government should not be in the business of punishing people who are working hard, and working hard to improve their own standard of living. We should be in the business of helping them to raise that standard of living. That is what our job is all about here. That is what the mission of government is. Mr. Speaker, Medicaid is a safety net for millions of American families just like Kathy Davis and her family and her two young children here. This budget cuts that safety net away, and it is our Nation's children who are going to take the fall. I urge my colleagues to look at these faces. I urge them to think about these kids on Thursday, this week, when the budget comes to the floor for a vote; and I ask my colleagues to ask yourself, is it worth it? Is it worth it? Balancing the budget is a tremendously important goal, but if we balance the budget on the backs of sick children, disabled children, of just children in general, it will be a truly shameful day in the history of this great Nation of ours; and it will be a sad day in the history of this institution, which is charged with creating good public policy, sound public policy, responsible public policy that will allow the people in this country, in fact, to have a better standard of living for themselves and for their families, especially when they are working as hard as they are and playing by the rules and trying to help themselves and their families. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like now to ask the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], who has joined with me and with several of us almost on a nightly basis, to talk about some of these issues: Medicare, Medicaid and the budget and its impact. I would like to ask my colleague from New Jersey to let us know about his sentiments on this issue.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], who truly spends so much time here on behalf of the people of this Nation and really fighting for their causes.

Ms. DeLAURO. I want to make one more comment and then yield to my colleague from Texas. There was an article in yesterday's New York Times by Bob Herbert. It is entitled ``Kiss and Cut, Empty Promises About Children.'' I think that there are two pieces that are particularly important in the discussion and the debate that we are going to have over the next few days here, because we are going to hear a lot of talk on this floor. This is Dr. Irwin Redlener who was president of the Children's Health Fund. Their mission is to deliver services to youngsters in rural and urban communities. He says here, the fact that there are proposals on the table now that will further undermine health care, the health care safety net for children is really incredible. It suggests the possibility of some terrible consequences for society in the future because what it really means is that there will be children who will suffer from disabilities, physical and mental, that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. It is incredibly stupid and shortsighted to take down Medicaid in this way. Then he concludes the article, because again what we are to hear on this floor in the next couple days is that what we are doing in this budget is saving this country for our children, that all of this, all of these cuts in nutrition and in health care and in education, and just go down the line, all of these cuts are going to be there for our children's future. There is a particularly, I think, poignant finish to this article. It says, when the budget cutters smile in your face and tell you how much they love your children, ask to see that ugly and arcane region known as the fine print. You will need a guide and a strong stomach. What they do to children there is not to be believed. I encourage everyone to look, to listen, to watch in the next couple of days about what is in that fine print and what, in fact, is being proposed for the children of this country.

Ms. DeLAURO. So did I.

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank my colleague for his comments and say it really is rather incredible. I take a look at some of the other cuts in Connecticut, and you have similar numbers and probably larger numbers in New Jersey. But we are going to see that about 1,374 children in Connecticut will be denied Head Start, about 180,000 children nationwide; 9,200 Connecticut children will be denied basic and advanced skills, and that happens through the cuts in the title I program of our education budget. It is a 17-percent cut in 1996. We are going to cut safe- and drug-free schools, which 170 out of 175 school districts in Connecticut use to keep crime and violence and drugs away from children. We are jeopardizing the nutrition programs for about 300,000 kids in the State of Connecticut; 130,000 children in Connecticut live in working families that are going to have their taxes raised an average of about $300 under this Republican budget. And yet, we are going to see a tax break for the richest people in this country. It is just so out of sync. It is out of whack.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon really to say thank you to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work on this very, very important bill, and I tell my colleagues that this bill makes public housing safe for our seniors, and amen. We have waited for this day for a very, very long time. Mr. Speaker, this bill employs better screening of potential tenants prior to admission and a more streamlined procedure for evicting tenants who put the health, and safety, and peaceful enjoyment of other residents at risk in senior housing. In addition, this legislation clarifies the ability of public housing authorities to create elderly-only, disabled-only and mixed population housing based on local needs. I have worked with elderly residents and public housing authorities in New Haven to ensure that such protections were passed into law as part of the Community Development Act in 1992. Seniors have the right to feel safe in their homes; particularly, elderly residents who can afford to live nowhere else. I am proud to join my Republican and Democratic colleagues today, as we embark on the next stage in providing seniors a safe and more secure living environment. The Community Development Act of 1992, included language to permit public housing authorities to designate certain projects for elderly- only, for disabled residents only, or mixed housing. However, we did not provide the tools necessary to implement these laws. To date, only 10 out of 3,400 local public housing authorities have had mixed housing plans approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Senior Citizens Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act, that we are taking up today, clarifies the rules for implementing these plans while providing essential safeguards against wrongful exclusion or eviction of tenants under current law. This can truly be an issue of life and death. In New Haven, CT, several years ago, an elderly public housing resident living in the Crawford Manor public housing development was killed by a non-elderly resident. This painful tragedy created a reaction of fear and resentment among the elderly, not only in Crawford Manor, but throughout the city. Despite the passage of the mixed housing legislation, I continue to receive letters from local tenants, organizations citing complaints from residents of elderly housing complexes regarding abusive or violent tenants. Here is a portion of a letter I received from Sylvin Nisbet, president of the New Haven Tenants Representative Council in October of last year. The problems that certain persons are subjecting the elderly to are extraordinary and catastrophic. I have received complaints about fighting, lack of security, intoxication, urine in hallways, loud, offensive, obscene language, threats on seniors lives, confusion, disorder and criminal activities. Senior citizens deserve to have a better living environment. At the very least, we are entitled to our rights of peace and quiet enjoyment in our apartments. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with Sylvan Nesbitt. This bill will assist in achieving that peace and security and community that our seniors deserve. Mr. Speaker, let me make a personal comment here. My mother is 82 years old. She sits on the city council in New Haven, CT. Five years ago at age 77 she said to me when I was elected to this body, ``If there is one issue that you can work on that I have seen day after day in every senior housing complex that I go into, it is the fear that seniors live in because of the situation with drug addicts and alcohol abusers.'' She said ``If you can work on anything, please see if you can do something about this.'' I do not sit on this committee, but I have been active in this area. I applaud my colleagues for bringing this bill forward today, and helping me make good on a promise to my mother and to the seniors of the city of New Haven and the Third District and the seniors of Connecticut.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, they say that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Well, it might also be advised that people who throw stones at glass houses should not move into glass houses. In 1988, when then-Congressman Newt Gingrich led the call for an investigation into then-Speaker Jim Wright, Gingrich claimed that Wright had violated House rules by arranging for bulk sales of a book he had authored. At the time, Gingrich alleged that the bulk sales were being used by Wright to get around limits on lecture fees. Now, according to a story that in yesterday's New York Daily News, Speaker Gingrich is profiting from some bulk sales of his own. The Daily News story reveals that Speaker Gingrich is wracking up his own bulk sales of his book, ``To Renew America.'' According to records, bulk sales of the Gingrich manifesto have been made to both political organizations which he has personal ties to and to organizations which have business before Congress. In one case, a company purchased 10,000 dollars' worth of Mr. Gingrich's book. That is a lot of books. What is wrong with that, you may ask? Plenty, according to experts on congressional ethics. In fact, Richard Phelan, the independent counsel who led the ethics investigation into the Wright book deal, said yesterday that Speaker Gingrich's bulk sales raise a lot of questions. When asked to compare the charges against former Speaker Wright with the latest allegations against current Speaker Gingrich, Phelan said: ``There is a definite parallel.'' Among the organizations that have purchased the Speaker's book in bulk, are the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Virginia and the Georgia Public Policy Center. Both organizations are run by Gingrich political allies and both purchases were made just prior to Gingrich attending events sponsored by the groups. When former prosecutor Phelan was told of one case where the bulk sales were made, just prior to a speech by Gingrich, he said: ``It could be a quid pro quo for the speech and this is precisely what we got Wright on. No, no, no, Mr. Speaker.'' No, no, no, Mr. Speaker, indeed. The latest twist in the Speaker's troublesome book deal with Rupert Murdoch only serves to underscore the need for an outside counsel to investigate the ethics charges against Mr. Gingrich. As the Speaker himself said in 1988, when urging an outside counsel to investigate Mr. Wright: The rules normally applied by the Ethics Committee to an investigation of a typical Member are insufficient in an investigation of the Speaker of the House, a position which is third in the line of succession to the Presidency and the second most powerful elected position in America. Clearly, this investigation has to meet a higher standard of public accountability and integrity. The standard of public accountability and integrity cannot be expected to be upheld when the investigation into the highest ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives is being conducted by people who are politically indebted to him. It is hard to say ``no'' to the Speaker of the House. Republicans on the House Ethics Committee feel pressured to defend the Speaker's book deal, just as Republican organizations feel pressured to purchase the Speaker's book. Without an independent, outside counsel to investigate the allegations against Speaker Gingrich, we will never lift the ethical cloud that hangs over the House.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and in strong opposition to this bill which will cut $270 billion from Medicare to pay for a tax cut to the wealthy. This bill is a bad deal for seniors. It means seniors will see their premiums increase and their benefits decrease. For seniors this plan should be called the pay-more-get-less plan. It is a good deal for the special interests. Last week Newt Gingrich bought off the doctors' lobby with a $3 billion back-room deal. Under this plan, seniors, on fixed incomes, will pay more while doctors with a 6-figure incomes will make more. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago another Congress made a pact with our seniors, it said never again would they have to worry that one accident or one illness will wipe out their life's savings. This Congress has no right to break that sacred pact. Vote no on a $270 billion Medicare cut to pay for a $245 billion tax break.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, Hubert Humphrey remarked in 1977: It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children, those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly, and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped. Mr. Chairman, this Republican controlled House miserably fails that moral test. I stand here in this Chamber ashamed, ashamed that my Republican colleagues are trading, trading the health security of our Nation's elderly for a tax break for the rich. They talk about attacking fraud and abuse in the system, but it is bogus, for the Republican plan turns back the clock on statutes to combat fraud and abuse. They repeal the laws that prohibits fraudulent practices, like prohibitions on doctors who refer patients to providers that they or a family member personally profit from. The Washington Post says it best, ``Gingrich Places Low Priority on Medicare Crooks.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, if we want to deal with the war of the newspaper clippings, let me read a few headlines: ``House GOP Medicare Bill Wins Over Doctors with Hidden Enticements, Promise of Profits,'' ``Keep Nursing Homes Standard,'' ``GOP Medicare Bill Seems to Favor Fraud.'' Washington Times, not a liberal newspaper in this town: ``Ride for Doctors,'' ``Beneath the Surface, the Health Care Plan is Offering Booms,'' ``GOP Changes May be Worth Hundreds of Millions to Doctors and Hospitals.'' Let us see what else we have here. ``Bills Would Relax Federal Controls on Nursing Homes.'' So, let us deal with it. There are lots of newspaper articles and lots of commentary about the Republican plan. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will vote and the Congress will vote cut $270 billion in Medicare to pay for a $245 billion tax cut for the wealthy. I will vote against it. I will vote against it, because the people that I represent have asked me to vote against it. My constituents have sent me petitions, they have called my office, they have written heartbreaking letters, all to tell me to vote against the Republican pay-more-get-less plan. I want to share some of their thoughts and feelings here tonight. Let me hold up this stack of Medicare questionnaires that have been collected throughout Connecticut's third district by wonderful senior volunteers. The question put to my constituents was, would you support a plan to cut Medicare in order to finance a tax cut? The overwhelming response was no. In fact, more than 12,000 petitions were collected by our Medicare team captains in a little over 5 weeks. That is 12,000 signatures opposing the Medicare cuts. The sentiment against the Medicare cuts runs high. Let me read a letter from Helen Patent of New Haven, CT, because I think that she speaks for so many seniors. She writes, and I quote, ``I am very, very upset that Congress wants to put such devastating cuts in Medicare and Medicaid programs. There are so many people that rely desperately on these programs. My husband and I are both very dependent on Medicare. After raising seven children, my husband is retired. We both have had triple bypasses within the past six years and have tremendous hospital, doctor and medical bills. Without the help of Medicare, we would have lost our house and all that we have worked so hard for. Please preserve our Nation's health care system to ensure that every individual has the right to health care now and in the future.'' I say thank you kindly to Helen Patent for her letter. Helen and seniors like her all across this country depend on Medicare. They know that it works, and they do not want this Congress to destroy Medicare. It is time for Congress to put the public interests before the special interests. Read the headline on this article. But that is not what we have seen in this body when it comes to Medicare. In fact, in the last week, two groups came to Washington because they had concerns about the GOP Medicare bill. Members of one group were treated to a closed-door meeting with the Speaker; and members of the other group, they got arrested. The first group was the American Medical Association. The AMA got a back-room deal worth billions of dollars. The second group was the National Council for Senior Citizens. The National Council and the 15 seniors got a trip to jail. They closed the light in the hearing room, they put handcuffs on these senior citizens, they put them in the car, in the wagon, and they took them downtown to be arrested, and they held them for 2 hours. Yes, indeed, they did. What was the crime of these seniors? They came to the people's House. That is where we are. We are in the people's House. They came here to ask questions about a Medicare bill that affects their lives every single day. They wanted to participate in our democracy. Mr. Speaker, we serve at their pleasure. That is what we do, is to bring their voices here. They wanted to see the details of a proposal that has such a deep impact on their life. Medicare cuts are not an abstract issue to American seniors, and these cuts mean pain for our Nations seniors.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this week the House of Representatives will take up unprecedented cuts of $270 billion from Medicare which has been a lifeline for over 37 million seniors. During its 30 year legacy, Medicare has provided our elders with the security of health care coverage and has lifted millions of our seniors out of poverty. Medicare is a solemn contract between this Nation and our elders. It should not be tampered with lightly. Over the years, those of us genuinely concerned with strengthening the Medicare system have urged a crackdown on Medicare fraud. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that stopping the growing problem of fraud will reap billions of dollars in savings. But you don't need some policy-wonk's study to tell you that the system is rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse. Just visit one of our Nation's senior centers and sit down for a senior lunch and ask one of our senior citizens to show you their bills. However, the Republican bill we will take up later this week does not toughen enforcement. It does not even defend the status quo. Even worse, the Republicans turn back the clock on cracking down on Medicare fraud. Sadly, I am not surprised. As Speaker Gingrich said last week in this Washington Times article, in his feeble effort to defend GOP moves to reduce penalties and enforcement efforts against Medicare fraud: ``murderers out after 3 years'' and rapists who don't even get tried.'' ``For the moment, I'd rather lock up the murderers, the rapists and the drug dealers,'' he said. ``Once we start getting some vacant jail space, I'd be glad to look at it.'' The Republican leadership is not interested in correcting and punishing the criminal elements in the Medicare system. Because that may hurt the special interest supporters in the medical industry. Their priority is to ensure that the special interest supporters in the medical industry are taken care of, with minimal losses in this debate on cutting Medicare. So, while the Speaker cuts a deal in a backroom with the American Medical Association to make sure that the interests of doctors are protected, while the health care cheats make a fast buck at the government's expense, seniors are being asked to pay more in out-of- pocket costs and deductibles. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have abandoned the most obvious of the potential savings in the Medicare program: Combating Medicare fraud and abuse. I introduced legislation this Congress, the Health Care Prosecution Act, to do just that. My bill stops health care cheats in their tracks, retrieves the financial losses in restitution and fines, and puts the criminals behind bars so that they are unable to promulgate more health care scams in the future. Further, my legislation establishes a temporary health care fraud and abuse commission to study the nature, and extent of fraud in our system. The commission would make recommendations to Congress on innovative approaches to attack fraud. Mr. Speaker, I think my bill is a good one but it is not the only effective way to crack down on fraud. There are lots of good ideas out there about how to rid our system of the scams that are ripping off our Nation's seniors and taxpayers. I am sorry that my Republican colleagues have chosen to pursue none of them.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week, we learned the extent to which the special interests are winning out over the public interests when it comes to the Republican Medicare proposal. Two groups came to Washington to protest the GOP plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare; one group got a $3 billion deal, the other got arrested. Here is a photo, of 67-year-old Roberta Saxton as she is handcuffed by Capitol Police. Her crime? She came to the people's House to ask questions about plans to change her health care plan. While Roberta was being arrested, the American Medical Association was treated to a different reception. They did not get handcuffed, they got handed a $3 billion deal in a private meeting with Speaker Gingrich. As the New York Times editorialized this weekend in a piece entitled ``Bribes for the Doctors''--the Speaker's concessions made an already bad Medicare bill substantially worse. This bill was never designed to give the elderly high quality health care. It is less likely to do so now.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to kick off a series of 5-minute special orders this evening to address the growing problem of Medicare fraud and abuse. It is shameful that Members of Congress have been virtually denied the opportunity to discuss the leadership's proposal to cut Medicare by $270 billion, and it is unprecedented its rollback of Medicare fraud law enforcement. The Republican plan would devastate Medicare to pay for a tax giveaway for the wealthy, but it also misses a golden opportunity to fix a major problem with Medicare. In fact, it actually makes this serious problem worse. The GOP plan actually will make it easier for Medicare cheats to get away with their health care scams. This plan rips off American taxpayers and American seniors. Many of us are genuinely concerned with strengthening the Medicare system, and we have urged a crackdown on Medicare fraud. I am happy that some of my colleagues have joined with me tonight to talk about this critical issue. I am proud to commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] for his commitment to combatting fraud and abuse in Medicare. The gentleman from Michigan plays a key role on the Committee on Ways and Means in the effort to toughen the punishments for fraud and strengthening our enforcement capabilities. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], an original cosponsor of my legislation, the Health Care Prosecution Act, to combat fraud and abuse in our health care system. The gentleman has been a leader in the fight to defeat the GOP's Medicare cuts and to restore integrity to the Medicare program for our elderly. I also would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Frank Pallone, and the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Sherrod Brown, for joining us tonight. Their work on the Committee on Commerce to remedy fraud and abuse in the Medicare system has been invaluable. We are here tonight, Mr. Speaker, to let the American people know that the Republican bill does not, let me repeat, it does not toughen enforcement measures. It does not even defend the status quo. Far worse, the Republicans turn back the clock on Medicare fraud enforcement. Just today, Mr. Speaker, the Inspector General of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department that monitors, the policemen, if you will, the fraud that occurs in the health care system said that the Republican proposal would make it harder for the government to obtain convictions under an anti-kickback statute, and, in fact, would cripple the Justice Department's ability to crack down on health care fraud. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that stopping the growing problem of fraud could save as much as $80 billion. And despite this evidence, the GOP plan does nothing to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse. That is because the plan has nothing to do with fixing Medicare, it has everything to do with providing the Republicans' rich political supporters with a fat tax giveaway. Mr. Speaker, while I am sadly disappointed, I am not surprised, as the Washington Times, not exactly a liberal publication, reported last week Speaker Gingrich dismissed the necessity of cracking down on Medicare cheats by suggesting that we have insufficient jail space to lock up all the crooks in the system. The GOP shows no hesitation to crack down on the elderly, the sick, the disabled, the poor, and the young in their plan. But when it comes to targeting the real bad guys, the Republicans suddenly express concern about inadequate vacant correctional facility space. The congressional leadership is not interested in correcting and punishing the criminal elements in the Medicare system. However, I have introduced legislation in this Congress, the Health Care Prosecution Act, to do just that. My bill stops health care cheats in their tracks. It retrieves the financial losses in restitution and fines and it puts the criminals behind bars so that they are unable to pull off more health care scams in the future. Further, my legislation establishes a temporary health care fraud and abuse commission to study the nature and the extent of fraud in our system. This blue ribbon panel would make recommendations to Congress on innovative approaches to attack fraud. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good ideas out there about how to attack Medicare fraud, waste and abuse. I am sorry that my Republican colleagues have chosen to pursue none of that. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be joined by additional colleagues tonight who will also address this issue of Medicare fraud and abuse and the way that we might address it, and that it is not addressed in the Republican proposal.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Secretary of the Treasury, Wall Street business person-- --

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time that he did yield.

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank my colleague for yielding. I just wanted to address a point. I was in my office doing work and listening at the same time as we all do, and noted your commentary with regard to the trustees and the Medicare Trust Fund. I wanted to take this opportunity.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DeLAURO. I will be quick. The point is in fact I think there is some misrepresentation of what the trustees have said. I will quote from the September letter from the trustees addressed to the Speaker and to the majority leader. The trustees have said, because I know that that is a read on which my colleague has hung his commentary and his colleagues have hung the commentary. And this is a quote from the trustees, from really actually the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Bob Rubin, a Wall Street business person before he came to this position. Simply said, no Member of Congress should vote for $270 billion in Medicare cuts believing that reductions of this size have been recommended by the Medicare trustees or that such reductions are needed now to prevent an imminent funding crisis. That would be factually incorrect. I just might add the trustees in fact did say that $90 billion was more in the nature of what was needed over a period of time to look at the solvency issue. And to that end, in the Committee on Ways and Means this week, our Democratic colleagues offered a specific amendment that talked about a $90 billion savings over the next 7 years to deal with the solvency problem to the year 2006. That was defeated by the Republicans. The question is, if $90 billion is what the trustees have said is necessary and we want to hang our hat on what the trustees have said, then what happens to the additional $180 billion? You cannot rely on the trustees on the one hand to talk about what they have said that we need to do for the solvency, and then discount what they say when they say it is not $270 billion, but in fact it is $90 billion. In response to the cry that the Democrats have not had a plan or proposal, in fact and in deed there was an amendment in the Committee on Ways and Means for $90 billion. In addition, a commission was set up that would deal with the longer solvency problem, what has to do with baby boomers, a bipartisan commission set up down the line. That was defeated. You have to represent the entire situation rather than just wanting to use the trustees as it might satisfy your point.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put in the Record the op ed that was written by the trustees in response to this issue and talking about $270 billion being factually incorrect. [From the Houston Chronicle, Sept. 5, 1995] It's Not Necessary To Cut Medicare Benefits (By Robert E. Rubin, Donna E. Shalala, Robert B. Reich, and Shirley S. Chater) The United States is involved in a serious examination of the status and future of Medicare. Congressional Republicans have called for $270 billion in cuts over the next seven years, claiming that Medicare is facing a sudden and unprecedented financial crisis that President Clinton has not dealt with, and all of the majority's cuts are necessary to avert it. While there is a need to address the financial stability of Medicare, the congressional [[Page H 10069]] majority's claims are simply mistaken. As trustees of the Part A Medicare Trust Fund which is the subject of the current debate, and authors of an annual report that regrettably has been used to distort the facts, we would like to set the record straight. Concerns about the solvency of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund are not new. The solvency of the trust fund is of utmost concern to us all. Each year, the Medicare trustees undertake an examination to determine its short-term and long-term financial health. The most recent report notes that the trust fund is expected to run dry by 2002. While everyone agrees that we must take action to make sure it has adequate resources, the claim that the fund is in a sudden crisis is unfounded. The Medicare trustees have nine times warned that the trust fund would be insolvent within seven years. On each of those occasions, the sitting president and members of Congress from both political parties took appropriate action to strengthen the fund. Far from being a sudden crisis, the situation has improved over the past few years. When President Clinton took office in 1993, the Medicare trustees predicted the fund would be exhausted in six years. The president offered a package of reforms to push back that date by three years and the Democrats in Congress passed the plan. In 1994, the president proposed a health reform plan that would have strengthened the fund for an additional five years. So what has caused some members of Congress to become concerned about the fund? Certainly not the facts in this year's Trustees Report that these members continually cite. The report found that predictions about the solvency of the fund had improved by a year. The only thing that has really changed is the political needs of those who are hoping to use major Medicare cuts for other purposes. President Clinton has presented a plan to extend the fund's life. Remarkably, some in Congress have said that the president has no plan to address the Medicare Trust Fund issue. But he most certainly does. Under the president's balanced budget plan, payments from the trust fund would be reduced by $89 billion over the next seven years to ensure that Medicare benefits would be covered through October 2006--11 years from now. The congressional majority's Medicare cuts are excessive; it is not necessary to cut benefits to ensure the fund's solvency. The congressional majority says that all of its proposed $270 billion in Medicare cuts over seven years are necessary. Certainly, some of those savings would help shore up the fund, just as in the president's plan. But a substantial part of the cuts the Republicans seek--at least $100 billion--would seriously hurt senior citizens without contributing one penny to the fund. None of those savings (taken out of what is called Medicare Part B, which basically covers visits to the doctor) would go to the Part A Trust Fund (which mostly covers hospital stays). As a result, those cuts would not extend the life of the trust fund by one day. And those Part B cuts would come out of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries, who might have to pay an average of $1,650 per person or $3,300 per couple more over seven years in premiums alone. Total out-of-pocket costs could increase by an average of $2,825 per person or $5,650 per couple over seven years. According to a new study by the Department of Health and Human Services, these increases would effectively push at least half a million senior citizens into poverty and dramatically increase the health-care burden on all older and disabled Americans and their families. The president's plan, by contrast, protects Medicare beneficiaries from any new cost increases. As Medicare trustees, we are responsible for making sure that the program continues to be there for our parents and grandparents as well as for our children and grandchildren. The president's balanced budget plan shows that we can address the short-term problems without taking thousands of dollars out of peoples' pockets; that would give us a chance to work on a long-term pan to preserve Medicare's financial health as the baby boom generation ages. By doing that, we can preserve the Medicare Trust Fund without losing the trust of older Americans.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this year, the University of New Haven marks its 75th anniversary with a year-long ``Celebration of Learning.'' It is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the university administration, staff, alumni, and students on reaching this historic milestone. With 6,000 students currently enrolled and over 28,000 alumni, the University of New Haven has become one of the largest independent institutions of higher education in the region. The university offers an impressive array of services to its students and, under the strong leadership of President Lawrence J. DeNardis, has forged strong ties with the surrounding community. Indeed, the university administration has worked hard to cultivate a long-lasting and mutually beneficial relationship with the city of New Haven. Students from all walks of life are able to take advantage of the school's diverse and exciting programs. The University of New Haven has more than fulfilled the vision and expectations of its founders who conducted the first classes at Yale University in the 1920's. Since then, the university has become known nationally for its exceptional programs in a number of different disciplines. I am confident that UNH will continue to expand its services while maintaining its hard-earned reputation for academic excellence and innovative programs. On Saturday, October 14, 1995, more than 600 alumni and friends of the University of New Haven will attend the 75th anniversary gala. I thank the university administration for including me in this historic celebration, and wish them continued success in preparing students for the 21st century.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, two groups came to Washington this week with concerns about the GOP Medicare cuts. One group got a private meeting with Speaker Gingrich. The other group got arrested. When the American Medical Association sent its high priced lobbyists up to Capitol Hill, they got a closed-door meeting with Speaker Gingrich and a billion dollar deal. But, the National Council of Senior Citizens didn't get the same reception. Its members got no meeting with the Speaker and no special deals. Instead, they got arrested. That's right. Fifteen senior citizens were arrested, handcuffed, and led away in a paddy wagon. What was their crime? Asking questions about the Republican Medicare cuts. Here's a photo of 67-year-old Roberta Saxton being handcuffed for asking a question about her health care plan. Welcome to the Gingrich revolution.