Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I proudly, in the bipartisan spirit of this bill, yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], a cosponsor of the amendment. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California. (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this amendment in no way adds to current law. It simply strikes the new language in the bill. It does not go further than what current law is all about. Women pay for these costs, and it is a price determined by the military hospital, payable to the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to make a comment on what the prior speaker said. Mr. Chairman, there is the conscience clause which is preserved, as in all branches of the military, as it is here. So there is no military personnel, professional personnel, who has to deal with performing a procedure. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen]. It is a pleasure to yield in the bipartisan spirit of this amendment.

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

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

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the Republican hoax. This week House Republicans promised to close the tax loophole that allows billionaires to avoid paying taxes by renouncing their U.S. citizenship. But instead of closing this loophole, the Republicans left the escape hatch wide open. According to the Treasury Department, this bill has the same problems as the current law that allows the super-rich to dodge paying their fair share. While Republicans find creative ways of protecting tax benefits for the privileged few, their budget hits working middle-class families on both ends: Cutting student loans and Medicare. Republicans love to talk about the revolution they are bringing to the House. In fact they are up to politics as usual: Big breaks for the privileged few while working middle-class families get stuck with the bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Chair's approval of the Journal.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last night President Clinton turned up the pressure to reach a balanced budget. I am sympathetic to that idea and to creating pressure for a more bipartisan effort, but I must say that I profoundly disagree with the President's proposal for $130 billion of Medicare cuts. Like the Republican proposal, when you slash Medicare in the context of a budget where you are cutting taxes, the Medicare cuts are no more than a piggy bank for another purpose, and I think that that is wrong. I have said all along that the only way to move toward a balanced budget is to make everyone contribute to that effort, and that includes cuts in corporate subsidies. We should move toward a balanced budget, but if we do that, everyone should be asked to contribute. We need to move toward that balanced budget, but not with a disproportionate cut to the seniors of this country.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Equitable Health Care for Neurological Disorders Act of 1995. I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives McHale, Ward, and Gejdenson, for joining me as original cosponsors. I am proud once again to introduce this important measure that would make such a dramatic difference in the lives of people afflicted with neurobiolgical disorders. This year, I am especially honored to be reintroducing the bill in memory of my dear friend, Enid Peschel. Enid was a pioneer in the emerging study of neurobiological disorders and the inspiration behind my decision to introduce this bill. It is my hope that her dream of seeing this legislation become law will be realized in this session of Congress. As an active participant in the fight for health care reform, I continue to believe that health care reform is a goal that we must continue to work toward. All Americans should have the security of knowing that they will have health care coverage--regardless of their health or economic status. Perhaps no group of individuals has faced more discrimination by our Nation's health care system than those with severe mental illnesses. In the past 15 years, a revolution has occurred in neurobiology that has clearly documented that many of these severe mental illnesses are, in fact, physical illnesses. These physical disorders of the brain-- neurobiological disorders--are characterized by neuroanatomical and neurochemical abnormalities. Controlled clinical research undertaken by scientists across the Nation have produced a body of irrefutable scientific evidence documenting the physical nature of these disorders. Despite this, individuals with neurobiological disorders and their families continue to face discrimination and stigmatization by health insurance plans and society at large. I have visited with families who have had to cope not only with the emotional pain of dealing with neurobiological disorders, such as schizophrenia and autism, but the financial hardship as well. Health insurance coverage for mental disorders is often limited to 30 to 60 inpatient days per year, compared with 120 days for physical illnesses; copayments, which are usually about 20 percent for physical illnesses, are often raised to 50 percent. Because of these arbitrary limits on coverage, individuals and families affected by these disorders are faced with onerous financial burdens. These people deserve the same kind of care and treatment that is available to those who suffer from other severe illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, or heart disease. Families who are faced with severe mental illnesses should not be placed in a different category--financially burdened, stigmatized, and treated as if they had done something wrong. My bill would help these individuals and their families by requiring nondiscriminatory treatment of neurobiological disorders. Health care plans would be required to provide coverage that is not more restrictive than coverage provided for other major physical illnesses and that is consistent with effective and common methods of controlling health care costs--such as copayments and deductibles. My bill also stipulates specific benefits that must be provided and assesses a penalty on those plans that do not comply with the act's requirements. Requiring equal health coverage of these disorders is not just important to individuals suffering from neurobiological disorders and their families. It is also important to the Nation. According to the National Institutes of Mental Health, equitable insurance coverage for severe mental disorders will yield $2.2 billion in net savings each year through decreased use of general medical services and a substantial decrease in social costs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this important legislation. Adoption of this policy would go a long way toward saving billions of dollars in wasteful spending, eliminating the stigmatism and misunderstanding so often associated with neurobiological disorders, and most importantly, ensuring that all those suffering from these devastating illnesses are adequately cared for.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, President Clinton vetoed a bad bill proposed by the Republican leadership that would have cut crucial education and job training programs for our young people, in order to fund wasteful pork projects. As that legislation comes back to Congress, it is time to reassess our priorities. Do we choose pork or people? Democratic priorities are clear. We want to work to make a better future for America's working families. Education and job training help to give our young people the tools they need to succeed in life. They should not be sacrificed for another multimillion-dollar courthouse or another needless tax giveaway to the wealthy. I believe that Democrats and Republicans can work together to fashion a package of cuts that will preserve crucial education and job training programs and achieve deficit reduction. The bill that the President vetoed yesterday failed on both counts, and, therefore, failed America's working families. The President was right to veto it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Speaker Gingrich promised to get approval for his book deal from the Ethics Committee before signing the contract. Now, the Speaker has embarked on a nationwide book tour, so the Ethics Committee must have given its OK, right? Wrong. In fact, the Ethics Committee did not get a chance to rule on the propriety of the Speaker's multimillion-dollar book contract, before it received a letter from Mr. Gingrich's lawyer saying that Mr. Gingrich was going ahead with the deal. The letter reads: ``We will assume that Mr. Gingrich's book publishing complies with House rules.'' But, the chairwoman and the ranking member of the committee quickly wrote back to Mr. Gingrich's lawyer saying: ``You should make no such assumption.'' This advice was ignored. The Speaker never received approval from the Ethics Committee on his book contract, as he promised. Mr. Gingrich's wanton disregard of the Ethics Committee makes the case for an outside counsel to investigate the other charges pending against him. The Speaker will be unable to ignore the ruling of an outside counsel in the way [[Page H5628]] that he has ignored the Ethics Committee.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are asking working families to sacrifice in order to pay for their tax giveaway to the wealthy. The GOP cut in student loans will result in the largest increase in college costs in history for working families--families like the Baxters of West Haven, CT. The Baxter children, Heather, Joe, Heidi, Scott, and Donnie come from a single parent family. Their mother, Gail, has already worked to put one daughter through college, and, next fall, her four remaining children will all be attending college. And, yes, Gail and her children rely on student loans to help pay tuition. The Republican plan to cut student loans by $18.6 billion will increase the cost of a college education by an average of $5,000 per student. For the Baxters, that is an increase of $20,000. The Republican budget asks the Baxters to pay $20,000 more, so the richest 1 percent of Americans can pay $20,000 less. That is wrong.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I think your point at the outset of your remarks bears repeating, which is that these are folks who for the last several days have been talking about saving the Medicare system, when they have not really cared much about the Medicare system at all. Just a few weeks ago, as you pointed out, they took $87 billion out of the trust fund over a 10-year period of time, without blinking an eye. They did not want to debate it, did not talk about it. This was their crown jewel, their whole tax cut and their tax break plan. And now they are here trying to pull another fast one on the American public. And I think that they worked hard today on this floor to hoodwink the American people, and people that I represent, and they are here in this photograph with us tonight on this floor and here earlier today, Julius and Dottie, who are people who have served this Nation, and our Republican colleagues are trying to fool these folks into thinking they are not cutting their Medicare payments, and then back-door them with their Social Security payments. The fact is, the facts just speak for themselves. The article that you referred to, and they do not want to admit it, our Republican colleagues do not want to admit it, from the New York Times, which says they there are confidential documents from the House Committee on the Budget tht show that the Republicans are recommending changes that would increase the deductibles, that would increase premiums. The deductible increase would go from $100 to $150 in 1996, and more every single year after that, because that would rise with inflation. But what they do not want to do is to have the benefits rise with inflation. They refuse to do that, but the costs will rise with inflation.

Ms. DeLAURO. That is right.

Ms. DeLAURO. The premiums will go up nearly double. They will go to $84 in [[Page H5182]] the year 2002, and that means seniors will pay $456 more a year than they do today. It is really incredible. In Connecticut, in my state, you will see that the enrollees, Medicare enrollees, will pay an additional $1,167 every year, and, over 7 years, $3,800. They also put on, and I would just ask my colleagues to comment on this, a 20 percent sick tax on home health care and on laboratory tests. I do not know about you, but lots of the seniors that I know go for substantial laboratory tests. Certainly the Ruskins do. Julian and Dottie go for lots of laboratory tests. Imagine what that means in terms of having to have a 20 percent tax put on them for those tests. The other point that our colleagues do not want to mention is the whole issue of choice and choice of doctors.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. You know, there is.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, representing Connecticut, I just wanted to correct the numbers that you just talked about with regard to Connecticut. There are over 503,906 Medicare enrollees in Connecticut, and in fact what would be the case is that they would pay $1,167 more in the year 2002 alone, and $3,885 more over the next 7 years. Overall, just so that the record will show, the State of Connecticut would lose $1.2 billion in Medicare funding in 2002 alone and $4.1 billion over 7 years. So I just wanted to present that in terms of the record on this issue. I thank the gentleman.

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