Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to be here tonight and to be joined by my colleagues to talk about what we, some of us, have been talking about for the last several months, and specifically in the last several weeks, and that is the issue of the devastating cuts that the Republican leadership in this House would like to inflict on seniors in this country with $270 billion of cuts in Medicare. I think you need to put this issue into some perspective to understand how the special interests today are winning out over the public interest in this Congress. You really just have to take a look at today's newspapers. There really are two very poignant stories about two different groups who came to Washington, to the people's House, I might add, which is what this body is called. We are not only the House of Representatives, we are known as the people's House. Well, we have two groups who came this week. One group's members got a private meeting with the Speaker of the House. The other group's members got arrested. Yes, my friends, the other group got arrested. When the American Medical Association and its high paid lobbyists came to Capitol Hill, they were given a closed door meeting with Speaker Gingrich. And, lo and behold, after the meeting with the AMA, it announced that it would reverse itself and support Republican Medicare cuts. You will note on Tuesday, October 10, in the report of the New York Times, it said ``For months Republican plans to curb Federal health care spending have sailed along on a silent wave of interest group approval. But now cracks are showing. The American Medical Association is starting to complain about the impact on care.'' That was on October 10 in the New York Times. Well, they had their closed door meeting with the Speaker of the House, and, guess what? It was a flip-flop. And here you have on Thursday, October 12, ``House GOP Medicare bill wins over doctors with hidden enticements and the promise of profits.'' When happened behind those closed doors? And I will quote to you the AMA representative, I believe his name is Kirk Johnson, in the paper said, ``Doctors were promised billions of dollars more than they would receive under the original plan.'' In other words, they were bought off by the Speaker, How were they bought off? Today in the Wall Street Journal the headline is as shown here, that the House GOP Medicare bill wins over doctors with hidden enticements, promise of profits, and the Journal lays out what they call the Medicare sweeteners. These incentives include a provision to make it easier for doctors to set and profit from their own managed care plans known as provider service networks; a limit on payment of damages to some victims of medical malpractice; they would allow beneficiaries to set up medical savings accounts which would place no restrictions on the fees that doctors could charge those patients; and a promise to trim spending reductions in future fee for service payments by undisclosed amounts. Together, these provisions, once again, amount to a windfall of billions of dollars that the AMA representative crowed about after his meeting with the Speaker. Am I against doctors making a profit? I do not think anyone is against doctors making a profit, no. But I will tell you what we are against. We are against doctors making a profit while seniors get the shaft. You see, the $270 billion in the Medicare cuts can only come from providers or from beneficiaries. And every time the Republicans cut a deal with the providers, they have to cut more health care for seniors. Let me tell you, the American seniors are getting the message. They truly are. They understand this GOP shell game. Again, what I want to tell you is what happened yesterday, because it is equally important to find out about these two groups and what happened to them. When you take a look at the group that came, the National Council for Senior Citizens, they came to Capitol Hill, they did not quite get the same kind of reception that the AMA did. The seniors got no meeting with the Speaker; they received no concessions, no deals. Instead, they were arrested. That is right, there were 15 senior citizens, some in wheelchairs, some with canes, that were arrested yesterday. They were put in handcuffs and they were taken away in a paddy-wagon. What was their crime? They asked to speak in the people's House. That is what they were asking for, is an opportunity to participate in our democracy. And we have right here the photographs of those who were taken away. You will hear from some of my colleagues in a few minutes that they were there when this happened. You got here Teresa McKenna, age 68, from Falls Church, VA, with handcuffs being put on her. You have Roberta Saxton right over there, who is from Maryland, and she is 67 years old. There she is being handcuffed. Let me just say that they simply went, this group of seniors, to ask questions of the Committee on Commerce about the Republican plan, what is in it, what does it mean in terms of our lives, and they came to exercise their right as citizens. But they were turned away. The lights were turned off in the committee room and they were taken out to the paddy wagons. Let me just say that we found out yesterday that daring to ask a question and asking that question, which is the right of every American citizen, that is punishable by a rest. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks, because I know my colleagues want to join in this debate this evening, but when it comes to the special interests, the Republicans, this Congress and the majority in this Congress, they are all ears for the special interests. But when it comes to the people in this nation, they turn a defense ear. That is not what we should be about.

Ms. DeLAURO. Our time is just about concluded. I want to thank all my colleagues who came out tonight to engage in this discussion. The long and the short of it is that this is a serious debate. It is one that all Americans ought to be able to have their voices heard. What we have found out is that only some of the voices have been heard. The voices of seniors, the voices of working families have not been heard in this process, but the voices of special interests have been heard. We need to have a safe and secure Medicare system. The Democrats have an alternative. They presented that alternative in committee. It was voted down, and open hearings and open debate on this issue have been curtailed to only those who support the majority position or who have a financial interest in what does finally happen.

Ms. DeLAURO. That point that you made about the $10,000, that is in the very fine print. An insurance company under these medical savings accounts could charge up to $10,000 deductible, and that is truly incredible with what the seniors would have to go through. But once again, you are taking a look at a special interest that would derive real benefit from this effort at the expense of seniors who are on limited incomes.

Ms. DeLAURO. Furthermore, what they will say, our colleagues will say, and probably say here this evening, is that we do not have a plan. Well, first of all, Medicare is a plan, if we can fix some portions of it, which we need to and are willing to, without destroying it, and there are a number of suggestions in which to do that. Second, in the Committee on Ways and Means there was a Democratic alternative that was put forward. It was for $90 billion to cover what the trustees have talked about, and that was voted down, and that gives me an opportunity to have my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], join this debate.

Ms. DeLAURO. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], for making his comments. Clearly, those children were not in the room. Seniors were not in the room. Working families were not in the room. But Mr. Rooney and the AMA are in the room, and I think you were very clear in delineating how that process has worked here over the last several days. I might just add one point to what you have said. Our Republican colleagues have said that they are going to save the Medicare Program, and they make reference to the trustees' report of what is needed and what is necessary to save it, and the trustees, what they do not pull out from what the trustees have said is that $90 billion would be the amount of money to take us to the year 2006 and so forth. What is happening with the additional $180 billion?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the chief deputy whip, the minority whip. There are not many words to say what kind of strength and deliberation he has brought to this discussion and of the serious cuts in Medicare.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oregon for the eyewitness account and really for her concern and her compassion in accompanying Theresa McKenna and others who were taken away. It is a gesture of the kind of concern and the kind of individual the gentlewoman is and the kind of representative the gentlewoman is, of the interests of the people [[Page H 10036]] that she represents and all people who come here who ought to be treated in a very, very special way. Because without the people who are out there in each of our districts, we do not serve in this people's House. We only serve at their pleasure, and we need to keep that very, very much in mind when we are supposed to be doing the people's business in this House every single day. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], to join in this discussion. I thank the gentlewoman for her continued interest.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, that is true. We voted that twice last year, and Democrats have brought the issue of lobby reform and gift ban to this House probably five times in the last several months. Each time we are told that there is no time to do it, we cannot take it up. In the one instance where it did come up, it was voted down. It is now going to be postponed until some other time, and when a lobbying group, just in a week, in the face of seniors who were arrested, came in and within 2 days time, within 2 days time, changed their tune and were rewarded for doing that. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his vigilance.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to my colleague from Colorado, because in this Chamber he has an outstanding reputation for someone who is vigilant about the Constitution and the rights of the people in this Nation. We are all, and everyone should be very, very grateful to him for being that kind of a watchdog. We cannot really see these constitutional rights erode, because vigorous informed debate and differences in ideas is what makes this Nation great. I share your concern, because for people who are living this every day, the way we have, we are seeing that if the majority does not agree with a point of view, they do not agree with a piece of legislation, it is either not discussed or it is given short shrift, or it is given 1 or 2 hours of debate, or it is taken up in the middle of the night so that there cannot be that free and informed debate on issues that are vital to this Nation's survival. This in particular, the National Council of Senior Citizens, has been the most vocal group, in fact, about what will happen if we have $270 billion in cuts for Medicare, and $182 billion cuts in Medicaid.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, for her eloquent statement and remarks. She has been very, very active in this area over the last several months. To shed some further light on what is going on with seniors and the intimidation, I would like to yield time to my colleague, David Skaggs, from Colorado.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, and I have the highest regards for my colleague, except that those of us on this side of the aisle have been calling for hearings, for debate. We actually had an amendment on this floor of the House where we said let us go for 4 weeks of hearings. We have had 6 days of hearings on a highway bill, 28 days on Whitewater, 10 days on Ruby Ridge, 10 days on Waco, and yet we were only allowed 1 day of hearings in this body on Medicare, and I might add, on Medicaid, zero hearings. So that I am pleased that my colleague has come down, but the long and the short of it is, it is truly disingenuous to come down and ask for time when this is our time to talk about this issue and we have asked over and over and over again. I would like to really ask, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson- Lee], who wants to get involved in this discussion, to make her voice heard on this issue.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman for 15 seconds.

Ms. DeLAURO. What is before the light of day and what are we going to show to the public so that they can have an opportunity to be heard. I understand that my colleagues want me to yield. I do have folks that want to have an opportunity, and they have been here for a long time to get to speak, so I want to accommodate them and then I will be happy to entertain your comments.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois, and It is the question of----

Ms. DeLAURO. I would love to have my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, join.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, if you want to understand how the special interests are winning out over the public interest in this Congress, just read today's newspapers. There are two stories about two different groups who came to Washington to protest parts of the Republican Medicare cuts. One group got a private meeting with the Speaker of the House. The other group got arrested. When the American Medical Association and its high paid lobbyists came to Capitol Hill, they were given a closed-door meeting with Speaker Gingrich. A backroom, billion-dollar deal was made and the AMA reversed its position and endorsed the Medicare cuts. When the National Council for Senior Citizen's came to Capitol Hill, its members got no meeting with the Speaker, its members got arrested. Yesterday, 15 senior citizens were arrested and taken away in handcuffs. Their crime? Asking to participate in our democracy. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are not afraid to listen to the special interests. Why are Republicans afraid to listen to the people?

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I just wanted to add that I said I did not serve with the Speaker because I did not serve in the Connecticut State Legislature. But given where Jim Kennelly was in the firmament of Connecticut politics, and John Bailey, if the walls could tell stories, I think it would be pretty wild. In fact, I think Connecticut has lost a piece of its history today. We all want Barbara to know that she too and her family are Connecticut's history, part of the history of this body here, and that it is a tribute to her and to Jim to have so many of her colleagues on their feet tonight loving and being with her in spirit and thought and prayers.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, Sam Gejdenson and Nancy Johnson, and I wish we did not have to take the floor this evening for this sad occasion. Connecticut truly today did lose one of its finest public servants in Jim Kennelly. My colleague, our colleague, Barbara Kennelly, lost so much more today, and we extend to Barbara and to her family and to her children our heartfelt sympathy. Our thoughts and our prayers are with the Kennelly family. We pay tribute to a man who was truly a powerhouse, an unbelievable legislator in his own right, and as well a political spouse. There were none better in that role. It was 1959 that Jim and Barbara were married, and they became a political power couple in the State of Connecticut. Jim was a rising star. Barbara was heir to one of Connecticut's most famous political dynasties. Together they shared the dream and, as our Nancy Johnson just said, they were a wonderful couple. They were a political couple. They were a caring couple. They cared about what happened to people in the State of Connecticut and all over this country. [[Page H 9860]] They pursued their dreams and their dedication together. Jim Kennelly ran for public office in 1966. He was elected as a State representative in the State House. He climbed that ladder to the very top rung. He served as the Speaker of the House. I did not have the opportunity to serve with him there, but he was there from 1975 to 1978. As my colleagues on both sides of the aisle mentioned, he had the respect of Republicans and Democrats in that body. No one will question Barbara Kennelly's rise also as a star in proving her adeptness in a political world, and she climbed that ladder as did her husband. I often had the opportunity to watch Jim Kennelly watch Barbara Kennelly as she spoke and as she went out and she did her work. There was a great love, great affection, and great pride in his eyes as he watched her. There are those of us who know what the demands of political life are all about. And for women Members oftentimes there is a lot expected to balance that nontraditional role of being a Member of the Congress and at the same time also being a wife and a mother. Women in Congress understand the need to have a very supportive spouse. Jim Kennelly was such a man. He was comfortable and content to be at the top rung in political life as well as being the supportive spouse. So I join my colleagues tonight in offering our sympathy and our heartfelt prayers for Barbara and her family.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2405, the omnibus antiscience and anticompetitiveness bill. This is a reckless bill, a shortsighted approach to national priority setting that endangers America's role in the global economy both today and in the future. As a representative from the Third District of Connecticut, I have the honor of representing one of our Nation's research jewels. Yale University, located in my hometown of New Haven, boasts one of the most advanced scientific research facilities in the world. The work done at Yale and at colleges and universities across America provides an absolutely essential component of our Nation's economic competitiveness by conducting federally funded basic research and applied science. The knowledge gained by these efforts teams cutting edge scientific breakthroughs with practical applications that point the way toward America's future economic progress. America's economic competitors around the world know well the value of investing in civilian research and development. American jobs in every State in the Union rely on international competitiveness. Yet the United States invests a smaller percentage of its R&D dollars on civilian research and development than does nearly any of our economic competitors. Mexico, the Philippines, Japan, Argentina, Canada, Italy, Germany, Taiwan, Korea, France, and Britain all surpass America in their investment in civilian research and development. How can America ensure our future economic competitiveness with this shortsighted approach? The fact that we will still rank slightly ahead of the formerly Communist Czech Republic stands as little consolation for the working men and women of this country whose hard work produces goods and services that are suffering from increased competition from our economic rivals. We must stand tall for intelligent scientific policy. As the President of the California Institute of Technology recently wrote, ``Without first class science, we can look toward only to a second class economy and second class standard of living.'' Vote no on H.R. 2405.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, backroom deals are becoming the standard for this new Congress. Last night, after a closed door meeting with Speaker Gingrich the American Medical Association reversed its position and announced the association will now support the proposal. According to the New York Times, a representative of the AMA reported that the organization reversed its position because ``doctors would receive billions of dollars more than the Republicans had planned. But he and Mr. Gingrich refused to give the details, nor would they specify which other groups might receive less money to make up the difference.'' Well, why do we not make an educated guess? Medicare savings can only be achieved by cutting from providers or from beneficiaries. And, if the Republicans are not cutting from providers then guess who is making up the difference? America's seniors. While Republicans buy off the special interests, it is America's seniors who are being sold up the river.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, the Republican plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare in order to fund a tax cut for the wealthy is beginning to make members of their own party squeamish. This week, three Republican members of the other body said they could not stand by a $245 billion tax cut while cutting $270 billion from Medicare. They think it is the wrong thing to do and they are right. The Republican proposals to cut Medicare will mean that seniors will see their premiums double and their deductibles double. Senior citizens living on fixed incomes simply cannot afford to see their premiums go from $45 a month to $93 a month, or see their deductibles go from $100 to $200. The three Republican Senators are right. It is wrong to ask 37 million American seniors to pay $1,000 more for Medicare, so that the wealthiest Americans can get a $20,000 tax cut.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, a story in yesterday's USA Today regarding Republican plans to cut more than $270 billion from Medicare quoted 76- year-old Naomi Cutrer. Naomi voiced concern that Republicans are rushing through these Medicare cuts, without public hearings. She said: We need to slow down. They've only held one hearing on Medicare, and I don't know how many on Ruby Ridge and Whitewater. Well, Naomi, here's your answer--Congress has had 10 days of hearings on Ruby Ridge, 10 days of hearings on Waco, 28 days of hearings on Whitewater and only a single hearing on Medicare. Naomi Cutrer and seniors like her all across this country are right to be concerned about attempts by Republicans to ram through these Medicare cuts, without public hearings and without public input. This is supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people, but when it comes to Medicare the American people are being shut up and shut out.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I think as we look at how this House should conduct its legislative business, that the bill before us today, the highway bill, should serve as a model. And, I commend members of the committee and the Republican leadership for allowing a full and thorough discussion of this legislation and all its implications. The discussion of the highway bill has been ongoing for 7 months. The first legislative draft was presented in August, giving members ample time to read it before the bill was introduced on September 7. Finally, the committee held 6 days of public hearings on the highway bill, allowing the public to review the legislation and, more importantly, to allow the public to comment and testify on the legislation. Unfortunately, the manner in which this legislation comes to the floor, stands in stark contrast to another piece of legislation in committee, regarding a $270 billion cut. Instead of a month to study the legislation before it goes to the committee for a vote, the majority party will present its proposal for Medicare today and expect Members to be fully briefed for the hearing tomorrow. Instead, of the 6 days of hearings that the highway bill received, legislation to radically alter the health care system that services 37 million American seniors, will have only a single day of hearings. The American people have a right to full public hearings, on the GOP plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare to pay for a tax cut. I commend members of the committee for their work on this highway bill. I wish that Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee would follow their example and allow full, public hearings on Medicare reform.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, after months of hiding their Medicare plan from public view, House Republicans are going to give the American people a look, but, be careful not to blink--you might miss it. Republicans have announced that they will only have a single day of hearings to discuss their plan to radically dismantle the health care system that serves 37 million American seniors. So far this year, Republicans have treated the public to weeks of politically-charged hearings on Whitewater, Waco, and Ruby Ridge. But, when it comes to the largest cut in the history of Medicare, they cannot find the time on the schedule. So therefore, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of House Resolution 221, insisting that adequate time be set aside for public hearings on changes to the Medicare system proposed to be included in the reconciliation bill. The American people deserve open, and thorough hearings on the GOP Medicare plan. Two hundred Democrats have cosponsored a resolution calling for 4 weeks of hearings. If Republicans have nothing to hide, they should agree to let the American people judge their proposal on its merits.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Let me just say to you that when you cut back in the same way that you did in the Medicare Program, and we know that there are lower fees on reimbursements to doctors and hospitals, that you are doing the same thing in the Medicare system where it is not going to be just cuts to the providers. We all agree that there can be cuts to the providers. I could not stand here and say that we could not do that. On the other hand, what you will see, you will see a cut in services. You will see a cut in the quality of care that is being delivered to our seniors. Let me make one other point. There are some members of the other party that are trying to move away from their leadership. They are being quoted all over this country. In Fresno, CA, one of my colleagues was heard saying, and this is a quote, one of my Republican colleagues: ``We are concerned about saving Medicare at least for the next 15 years.'' Beyond that, he says he cannot commit to continued support from the Congress. Make no mistake about it. The plan is to end Medicare as we know it. One of our colleagues in Maryland, when he went out in terms of his road show this weekend, one of his constituents asked, ``Why are you offering tax cuts, while you're increasing the cost of Medicare?'' The Congressman's response was, ``Wouldn't you rather sing My Wild Irish Rose?'' I am not making this up. This is his quote. When you cannot defend your position, you change the subject. There are a lot of questions that are unanswered. I would ask the Republican leadership the following questions: If you are willing to have hearings, will you support the Dingell resolution that calls for 4 weeks of hearings in this body? If you are so interested in saving Medicare, are you willing to take the tax package off the table? Those are the questions that have to be answered.