Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I have a lot of respect for my colleague. We have worked together on a number of issues. I would like to believe and I think the American public would like to believe what you say. Again, just yesterday in the Washington Times, it says that-- The Congressional Budget Office will not be able to certify the necessary savings and the GOP plan will have a gaping budgetary hole. Senior GOP aides said an even larger problem is that a preliminary CBO analysis has revealed Republicans will glean little more than $30 billion from one of their most highly touted reforms, allowing seniors to enroll in health maintenance organizations instead of staying in Medicare's traditional fee-for-service program. Republican aides also said they foresee little savings from the malpractice reforms. The CBO also questions savings from reforms aimed at curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That leaves Republicans in a difficult position. They had been counting on saving as much as $80 billion from such reforms. A shortfall of that magnitude would reduce payments to doctors and hospitals each year by about $18 billion. The look-back provision is buying a pig in a poke. You do not know if you take a look and your savings are not realized, you are going to go back after people again. We had this debate and discussion last night.

Ms. DeLAURO. I think that this is such an important issue that it deserves a bipartisan discussion and debate. I will say, first of all, that we have tried to engage in that effort, and we are seeing 1 day for hearings on changing probably the most important piece for legislation that we have, a major, major change, really a reconstituting of the Medicare System in a way that we have not seen in the past. It is an absolute fundamental change in the system. Looking at this system, potentially turning it into a voluntary system, potentially privatizing, which is what the direction is going, and we have 1 day for hearings. So let me just say this to the gentleman. The fact of the matter is that you have been engaged in writing a plan that no one knows about. I want to go back to the last session of this Congress, where the whole issue of health care reform was not only on the table for debate in the public sector, of debate for almost 18 months in this body. Before the Committee on Ways and Means there were 14 days of debate on the health care reform bill. The Republican leadership has determined that we will see 24 hours and, quite frankly, for a plan in which in yesterday's Washington Times the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has expressed uneasiness, fear that the plan falls about a third short for what your goal is, which is to cut $270 billion from Medicare, and does not want to engage in smoke and mirrors but is fearful, if you read the same news that I am reading, that in fact that is what is going to occur.

Ms. DeLAURO. I would like to also go back to say that there has been, first of all, we have heard about the plan. There are very few details about the plan.

Ms. DeLAURO. You may be an open book, but let me tell you about the Congressional Budget Office, which says the following, and this is quoted yesterday: The details, until the details fully emerge, the Congressional Budget Office, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, Congress's economic analyst, will not be able to certify the savings, and the GOP plan will have a gaping budgetary hole. I am not saying this. But the Congressional Budget Office is saying it, and more importantly, until there are details, if you are going to hearings this Thursday for 24 hours to debate the most significant change in one of the most significant pieces of legislation in this country, if the Congressional Budget Office cannot act on it, if no one else has the details of this effort, if the American public does not see the debate because what you want to try to do is to cover it up in 24 hours and get this done, I do not--why are we doing this? The American public has a right to know. There are several questions that are critical. You asked about questions that ought to be asked. If the Republicans are truly interested in the solvency for Medicare, why is the solution to raise premiums on beneficiaries, premiums which in fact, as my colleague from Texas pointed out, do not go into the trust fund? That is the cruel hoax, because seniors are confused. The cruel hoax here is that we are talking about trying to deal with the Medicare trust fund and making sure it is safe and secure, and there is $270 billion that is not going into the trust fund.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, after months of stonewalling, Republicans on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct have reportedly agreed to appoint an outside counsel to investigate the allegations against Speaker Newt Gingrich. That is the good news. The bad news is Republicans on the committee now want to limit the scope of that investigation. In other words, they want to hire an outside counsel, but then they want to tie his or her hands. In 1988, when another Ethics Committee investigation into another Speaker, considered doing the same thing, here is what Newt Gingrich had to say: The American public, deserve an investigation which will uncover the truth. At this moment, I am afraid that the apparent restrictions placed on this special counsel will not allow the truth to be uncovered. Let us hold the investigation of Speaker Gingrich to the standards he himself set. Appoint an independent outside counsel. The American people deserve an investigation, not a whitewash.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House in 1988 allowed the then Mr. Gingrich to make his comment about an investigation before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Have the rules of the House now changed?

Ms. DeLAURO. So that the rules of the House have changed since 1988 when the Speaker at that time was able to make his comments?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on March 8, 1995, Speaker Gingrich announced a new policy concerning speech on the House floor. Let me quote directly from his announcement: The fact is, Members of the House are allowed to say virtually anything on the House floor . . . It is protected and has been for 200 years . . . It is written into the Constitution. My point of order is: Does this new policy apply in this case?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on a point of order.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Mink amendment which enables women in crisis, single parents, single pregnant women to get the training, education and skills they need to lead economically self-sufficient lives. Under the current law States are required to designate 10 percent of their education funds for these programs. This set-aside was created to redirect women into higher skilled and high-wage employment and to address the unique needs of displaced homemakers and single parents. This amendment, however, does not retain the specific set-aside, but merely requires that each State include in their State plan a description of how they will maintain these services. I believe this language is essential to ensure equitable educational and employment opportunities for women and girls. In New Haven County last year, these programs directly provided educational and employment assistance to nearly 500 women. Preparing them to enter the work force and meet the need of their children. Let me tell you about just one of the extraordinary women in my district and her success story. Pamela C. of West Haven, CT, is a 49- year-old mother of three. When she came to the Displaced Homemaker Program in New Haven in 1993, Pamela was employed in the service industry and bringing home $16,000 a year for her family. Pamela needed career counseling and a referral to job training so she could upgrade her job skills to earn more money each week and provide a better life for her family. Pamela received vocational training as a home health aide. She is now working full time as a home health aide for the Visiting Nurses Association in New Haven County. Not only does this provide her substantially more in earnings, she enjoys her work and feels good about going to work each day. Women like Pamela want to improve themselves and provide for their family. We must not shut the door of opportunity in their faces. The Mink amendment makes sure that door will remain open. It is clear that these targeted services are needed and are working for families on the edge in my district. The Mink amendment states that States should maintain programs for single parents, displaced homemakers, and single pregnant women who are struggling to provide for their families. These women are trying to help themselves and contribute, they should be supported and given assistance when possible. At a time when Congress is reforming our welfare system, and specifically imposing time limits on welfare services, increasing the employability and earning potential of women should be our primary goal. Mr. Chairman, the Mink amendment does not ask for a set-aside and its does not add any new costs to the bill. I wholeheartedly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we had months on Whitewater.

Ms. DeLAURO. I want to thank my colleague for taking the time this evening to engage in this debate, which I view as the most serious public policy issue that we are going to have in this body over the next several months. I just want to pick up on what you were saying from the newspapers, or from the commentary today. One comment that I have is that it looks as if the Republicans are cooking the books on their Medicare plan, and it is really America's seniors who are getting burned. You will recall that last week the Speaker of the House had to be corrected by staff members after he underestimated how much more seniors will pay under his party's Medicare proposal. But let me just say that the Speaker is not the only one that is confused about the GOP's sketchy plan to save Medicare. Just as you were saying, the headline in the Washington Times today, the quote is, ``GOP's Medicare savings doubted.'' Who was the article referring to? Not Democrats, but the chief skeptic in the article is none other, is one other than the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee. That is who is doubting this plan. Again, as you pointed out, the Democrats last week pointed out that $80 billion in the GOP plan, that there was going to be there, this $80 billion, a black hole. Now the leading budgetary expert in the Republican Party agrees that the numbers just do not add up, and that he is concerned, as are others, that the plan is going to be dismissed as gimmickry. Paranoia about the public knowing that the numbers do not add up truly has caused the Republicans to back down from their promise to release that plan last week, and it is no wonder that they are skittish about the plan. [[Page H 9126]] It is sketchy, and it appears that even the Chairman of the Budget Committee is questioning the Speaker's new math. But I will tell you that one of the other pieces in this article today confirms seniors' worst fears about the GOP Medicare proposal, and that is, in fact, that the worst, that the very worst is yet to come. Two weeks ago when they made reference to the $80 billion hole in their plan as ``future unspecified cuts,'' apparently this was much too descriptive a phrase, ``future unspecified cuts.'' So now what the Republican leadership is calling the $80 billion shortfall is this look-back provision. In other words, if they fall short of the projected savings, they can look back and they can make more cuts. This is buying a pig in a poke. And what we ought to do is to rename the look-back to is the reach-back provision, because it is nothing short of a license to reach back into the pockets of seniors. One other comment on this article, because I think the article is very interesting. The article also lists the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who is a colleague of mine, someone who is very well respected in this body, as also being critical of the GOP Medicare plan. He says that he is concerned that the plan will not meet savings projections because only high-end beneficiaries will have reason to stay in the Medicare system, while young, healthy beneficiaries are going to leave. The gentleman from Connecticut is right to be concerned, and his concern brings us to the crux of what is wrong with the Medicare proposal. The cost of Medicare is rising because the cost of medical care continues to rise in this country.

Ms. DeLAURO. In couple of areas--actually the chair of the Budget Committee is fearful that the plan that has been currently proposed falls so far short of the mark that it will be dismissed as gimmickry; that is the chairman's commentary. And the lockback provision further is regarded as the queasiness, I quote, the queasiness we have is that it might be perceived as a gimmick of some sort. Let me tell you it is not only being perceived as a gimmick of some sort, it is a gimmick that is precisely what they have done here, and I will tell you that seniors are beginning to recognize this all over this country, that that is what is being done.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I just want to add to the gentlewoman's point. It is interesting that the increase that seniors are going to face in premiums, deductibles, and copayments, none of that money will go to address the issue of dealing with what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say is the problem with the trust fund. That money is going into the general fund. As you have pointed out, it goes into the general fund in order to pay for the tax break. If you truly want to, as you pointed out, deal with the issue of trying to help to fix Medicare, is then take it out of the budget debate, take the tax package off the table, and let us talk about a bipartisan group of people sitting down the way we did with Social Security some years back and make the changes. This notion that the $270 billion is money that is going to go into this trust fund to, quote, save it is erroneous. That is not what is going to happen. The money, whatever increases are there, are going into a general fund in an effort to pay for the tax cut.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to add one point. I know we have some other colleagues on the floor and we want to get everyone into this debate, but the gentlewoman said something that was incredibly important, and that is the issue of Medicaid. In my State of Connecticut, 60 percent of seniors who are in nursing homes are covered under Medicaid. Most seniors in this Nation who are in nursing homes are covered by Medicaid. Few people understand that that is going to see a $182 billion cut. What happens to the senior who was in the nursing home, and by the way, they will do away with standards for nursing homes. That is also a part of this effort. What happens to the individual who is in the nursing home? What happens to the family who, after going through the trauma of putting an aging parent or a relative in a nursing home, who is then going to be thrown [[Page H 9129]] out and not find themselves with the wherewithal for that young family to be able to provide that kind of help and assistance to that relative and are going to have to pick up the cost themselves?

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman.

Ms. DeLAURO. I wanted to add one point. You have just laid out the kinds and numbers of hospitals that are going to be in difficulty. I would like to add one more category of hospital, and that is the teaching hospitals. I represent in New Haven, CT, Yale University, one of the finest teaching hospitals in the world. What will happen is not too many people know about the connection of Medicare and teaching hospitals and medical education. One of the hue and cries that we all heard throughout the health care debate in the last session of Congress and in this session of Congress is that the fact of the matter is that the United States has the very best quality of health care in the world, bar none. Folks from all over the world come here to get the benefit of our technology, our know-how, in medical care. If we begin to eat away at our teaching hospitals and our medical education, not only is the level of servicing going down, the quality of medical care that we stand on so proudly in this nation is going to be eroded. And I think that we cannot let it be forgotten in the litany the providers and hospitals that are going to be get hurt and how ultimately this may look like a cut to a provider, but in fact the recipients, all of us in this nation, are going to be hurt because the quality of our medical care is going to be eroded.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, just to add, if the gentleman would yield 1 second. That $80 or $90 billion that my colleague from Illinois talked about, that is amorphous at the moment. Who knows what that is. They are asking the public, they are asking people here to vote on $80 billion of unspecified cuts. I said earlier, it is buying a pig in a poke. And they are saying, ``trust me.'' And it is wrong.

Ms. DeLAURO. That is absolutely accurate, because assuming that seniors are getting well taken care of and that we ought to curtail what benefits that they have been getting and that they ought to pay more and it is not just a question of taking a look at upper income seniors, but all seniors, the benefits is this great largesse of benefits and we somehow ought to bring them back and particularly bring them back to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, cut off the seniors and pay for this tax break. What they fail to realize is that most seniors in this Nation are living on fixed incomes. These are folks who have worked all of their lives and they are entitled to retire with dignity. I met a whole bunch of folks this weekend, I was out all weekend, and people just kept coming up to me and saying do not let them cut our Medicare. Do not do that. One woman said to me yesterday, she said, if it was not for Medicare, I would not be here today. We all can see the game that is being played here, and particularly seniors are getting the message that there is a scam being perpetrated on them.

Ms. DeLAURO. That is right, and it is as if we understand that you can make changes in Medicare and you can make it a better system. That does not--fixing it is not destroying it, and to pick up on what my colleague from Texas was saying as well, it is that if [[Page H 9127]] you--if you want to control the cost of health care, you must do it in all areas of health care. You must not make a determination that you are doing to control the cost of Medicare, leaving everything else in the health care system going up and thereby utilizing the Medicare trust fund as a piggy bank to be able to take care of particularly a tax break, but using Medicare as the scapegoat on trying to hold down the costs of health care, overall health care costs in general, and the way we try to do in the last session of Congress, to overall health care reform. So that your chart, pay more and getting less, is what this is all about.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 15, I have the pleasure of joining one of Connecticut's most well-known and respected citizens, Thomas F. Keyes, Jr., for the celebration of his 80th birthday. A long-time resident of New Haven, Mr. Keyes has earned the admiration of his community for his career as a distinguished judge, committed public servant, and a premier trial attorney. Thomas Keyes is a man who lives life to the fullest extent. He is a walking encyclopedia of over 50 years of spectacular history which he recounts on Saturday mornings over bagels and coffee at the Bagel Connection on Grove Street in New Haven. The Saturday morning regulars, like New Haven Fire Chief Smith, Judge Reynolds, and Judge Flannigan, consider him one of the best storytellers in town. Tom was born and raised in New Haven. In 1933, he graduated from Hillside High School. He went to college at Yale and graduated from Yale Law School in 1940. During World War II, he served in the Army, and was stationed in Presque Isle, ME. Tom managed to come home for the weekends to New Haven on an almost regular basis. He went into public service like his father, Thomas Keyes, Sr., who was the New Haven Registrar of Voters for over 30 years. During the 1950's Tom junior spearheaded the effort to provide legal services for the poor as director of legal services in New Haven. In 1965, he was appointed by the mayor of New Haven as the city's corporation counsel where he served for 9 years. Tom was elected a probate judge of New Haven in 1974, and remained probate judge for 11 years until he was succeeded by his son John ``Jack'' Keyes. Now living in Madison, Tom has time to pursue golf and watch Yale football. Tom Keyes and his deceased wife Josephine have five children. Thomas Keyes III is a professor at Boston University, John Keyes is the New Haven probate judge, Bernadette Keyes is a practicing lawyer, Joan is a writer, and Julie has her own crafts and ceramics business. The DeLauro and Keyes family have been very close for many years. My mother worked for Judge Keyes when he was a New Haven probate judge and now works for his successor, and son. I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to Judge Thomas F. Keyes, Jr., on the celebration of his 80th birthday. It is an honor to join in this celebration. I wish a happy birthday to a model citizen and a long-time family friend.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. Today was the day that the Republican leadership was supposed to reveal the details of their secret plan to cut $270 billion in Medicare to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy. But they lost their nerve. And, I do not blame them. You see, the Republican leadership wants to keep this plan under wraps for as long as possible, because they do not want America's seniors to see a plan that would double their copayments and force them to give up their doctors. The House leadership has also announced that they will only allow 1 day of hearings on Medicare. One day. This amounts to a gag order on America's seniors. Instead of a plan, we got platitudes today. Instead of revealing the details of the GOP plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare, Speaker Gingrich instead revealed his goal to, quote, ``tell the truth.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, the truth is that 37 million Americans rely on Medicare for their health care. The truth is that they deserve to be heard. The truth is that they deserve to know how your plan will impact their lives.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it appears that the architect of the Republican revolution has not seen the blueprint. On Sunday, Speaker Gingrich stated that the Republican Medicare cuts would mean only 7 dollars in increased monthly premiums for Medicare recipients, but yesterday Republican staff corrected the Speaker and admitted that their plan would increase Medicare premiums by $32 a month, not the $7 a month the Speaker claimed. The Republican-controlled Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP plan will actually increase premiums by $56.50 a month. Why all the confusion? Because, it is not just the American people who are being kept in the dark about the Republican party's plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare to finance a tax cut for the wealthy. The Republican leadership is also in the dark. If there is a GOP Medicare plan, it must be written in invisible ink, because nobody has seen it, not even the Speaker.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank you. You really have said it all. In addition to reading the paper about giving away our land and at what price and what we are cutting, there are numerous other examples. When you take a look at just repealing the alternate minimum tax, which was not requested, was not asked for, put in by Ronald Reagan so the richest corporations in this country could pay the 20 percent rate, repealing that, giving the biggest, giving the richest corporations in this Nation, and we want to have them have a tax break so that they can invest and do this, but taking away all tax obligation to the richest corporations in this country. And then you say to folks who are every day playing by the rules, who are doing three or four jobs, parents, my parents, Congressman Ward's parents, Major Owens' parents, all of the folks who are here today, they are willing to work those three or four jobs to give their kids the opportunity. But when they are working three or four jobs and then you deny them the opportunity, that is why they are angry.

Ms. DeLAURO. If we give them that opportunity, and that youngster said ``we want to do better next year,'' that is what this body has got to do, is to do better on this issue. I would like to ask my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, to give us your views, but also how can these kinds of cuts in this area, in your view, be justified? How do we justify this?