Gene Green

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the chairman of the committee particularly mentioned that Medicare is going broke, and although this bill, S. 790, has nothing to do with Medicare going broke, but let me respond to the gentleman's claim that Medicare is going broke because I think it has to be responded to on the floor. Madam Speaker, Medicare is going broke in the year 2002, but not to the tune of $270 billion that they talk about cutting out of the system. The Medicare trustees' report said we needed to cut $90 billion to extend the solvency of the trust fund to the year 2006, not $270 billion. So the threat of going broke is only hype from the Republican side to try and justify the $245 billion in tax cuts that they are still going to try and provide. Madam Speaker, let me respond to my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Ehrlich, on the Health Care Financing Administration and the direct quote. The Health Care Financing Administration has been seen as a euphemism for the Medicare Program, because without the Health Care Financing Administration you do not have a fee for service, you do not have an ability for someone to go pick their own doctor, you are going to have someone who is going to have their doctor picked for them by someone in Washington DC, or someone else. Let us get back to S. 790, Madam Speaker, because again, it is to reform the reporting requirements, and I would hope it would be considered in light of the fact that there are individual reports that some of us may like in here, but our goal is to try and control the cost of Government, and S. 790 would do that. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I was responding to the question. I yield additionally to my colleague, the gentleman from California.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am confident when we deal with all of these issues, that the people will know who is working for the hospitals and who is not whether they are in Houston or around the country.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, in response, I have a great deal of faith in our local agencies, both our hospitals at the Texas Medical Center who will talk to their local Members about uncompensated care, but also with our local housing authorities. Because I work with, not only the HUD office locally in Houston, but also with the Houston Housing Authority to make sure the elderly and homeless are protected. Whether we have a report that is being filed up here which people will review or not, we still need to make sure we remember those people in those facilities.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague from California, I would be glad to go over subtitle F with him, the Department of Health and Human Services and the reports eliminated, and it does not address, you know, the controversy that the Speaker has talked about under Medicare. It does talk about the effects of toxic substances and an annual report from the Surgeon General to be transmitted to the Secretary. Nowhere under subtitle F of S. 790 does it address the controversy that we see today and hear today concerning the quotes from our Speaker on Medicare.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Well, again the gentleman brings up a valid point in reference to the report on the treatment of uncompensated care. Madam Speaker, the treatment will still be there for uncompensated care because under this bill are we not withdrawing that ability. We will be able to know that without having an annual report from the Social Security Administration or the Medicare trustees on the treatment of uncompensated care. We can be assured it is going to happen. We know in real life if somebody does not have insurance then they are going to show up at an emergency room for lots of reasons; for the flu, for toothaches, for lots of things like that. And if they do not have Medicare, then they will then be part of the general health care system, and that hospital will be required to treat them. As we know, in most of our emergency rooms around the country, they prioritize. Someone who has a lesser degree of illness than someone else may have to wait sometimes 6, 8, 10 hours for treatment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. In response to the question from my colleague from California, Madam Speaker and Members, the report on Medicare treatment of uncompensated care is a report that is required right now. If there is some senior citizen who is not on the fee-for- service Medicare and if they show up at an emergency room for treatment, then under current law they will still be treated no matter what. We are not changing that law either in the bill, S. 790, or any other bill that I have seen come through the Congress. So, in other words, if I am 70 years old and, because of the increase in Medicare premiums, I am not taking part in Medicare, if I show up at my local hospital, they still have to treat me. Mr. Stark, you are right, we are not changing that by this bill.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, if I could be heard, I would just like to be able to answer that.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise to support S. 790. In the previous Congresses, this bill would be a typical bill for the Suspension Calendar. It is not controversial and has bipartisan support, including the support of the administration. This bill simply eliminates reports to Congress that have outlived their usefulness. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan instituted this bill last session and has been joined in the session by Senator McCain. The Federal Report Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 eliminated over 200 congressionally mandated reports and sunsets most periodic reports authorized before 1982. Over 89 departments and agencies and all committees of the House and Senate were contacted to develop the list of reports to be eliminated. Madam Speaker, to demonstrate why this report elimination bill is important, let me describe just a couple of the reports eliminated or modified. First is a monthly report required from the Secretary of the Treasury on the sales of the World Cup U.S.A. 1994 commemorative coin. The 1994 World Cup was an exciting event in the United States, but I think we could all agree [[Page H 12228]] that the monthly reports on a commemorative coin really serve no good, useful purpose. The second example is a 1975 requirement that each agency report annually on its efforts to implement the metric system. I am sure there are those in these and each of the other 200 reports eliminated by this that were valuable at one time when they were written. Continuing to spend the money and time to compile them is not a good use of scarce resources. Again this is a good example, Madam Speaker, of bipartisanshipness on our committee that I would hope we would see on lots of other issues in Congress. In reviewing the legislation, our ranking member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], wrote to each ranking Democrat on all committees and asked them to review the particular bill. She asked them to advise of any reports listed to be eliminated that were useful to them and should, therefore, be kept. The bill incorporates changes by ranking members, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and those suggestions by Secretary Glickman and also the Railroad Retirement Board. The bill is estimated to save over $2 million in costs in printing costs and paperwork. Four years from now most of the remaining congressionally mandated reports, an estimated 3,000, will be sunsetted. The sunset provision will require Congress to decide which reports should be authorized and which should be left behind. Sunset legislation has been successful in a lot of our individual States, and I am glad to see our U.S. Congress again on a bipartisan basis addressing and using sunset to deal with the number of reports and the paperwork that we have. With that, Madam Speaker, I am placing additional comments in the Record. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to support S. 790. In previous Congresses, this bill would be a typical bill for the Suspension Calendar. It is not controversial, and has bipartisan support, including the support of the administration. The bill simply eliminates reports to Congress that have outlived their usefulness. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan initiated this bill last session and is joined this year by Senator McCain. The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 eliminates almost 200 congressionally mandated reports, and sunsets most periodical reports authorized before 1992. Over 89 Departments and Agencies, and all committees of both the House and the Senate, were contacted to develop the list of reports to be eliminated. Madam Speaker, to demonstrate why this report elimination bill is so important, let me describe just a couple of the reports that would be eliminated or modified. First is a monthly report required from the Secretary of the Treasury on the sales of the World Cup USA 1994 Commemorative Coin. The 1994 World Cup was an exciting event for the United States, but I think we would all agree that monthly reports on a commemorative coin is not a good use of resources. The second example is a 1975 requirement that each agency report annually on its efforts to implement the metric system. Now, I am sure that these and each of the 200 other reports eliminated by this bill were valuable at the time they were written. Continuing to spend money and time to compile them is not a good use of scarce resources. In reviewing this legislation, Mrs. Collins wrote to the ranking democrat on each committee and asked them to review the bill. In particular, I asked them to advise if any of the reports listed to be eliminated were useful to them, and therefore should be kept. This bill incorporates the changes suggested by ranking members Clay and Hamilton, and those suggested by Secretary Glickman and the Railroad Retirement Board. This bill is estimated to save over $2 million in printing costs and paperwork. Four years from now most of the remaining congressionally mandated reports--estimated at over 3,000--will be sunset. The sunset provision will require Congress to decide which reports should be reauthorized, and which should be left behind. Congressionally mandated reports often serve useful purposes. They are among the oversight tools we use to find out if the intent of the Congress is being followed. Reports to Congress are as prevalent under the new Republican leadership as they were under Democratic Congresses. For example, the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act, H.R. 1756, which is included in the House-passed Reconciliation bill, requires four reports to Congress from the Director of OMB. That's four reports over 3 years just on the process of dismantling the Department of Commerce. Similarly, H.R. 4, the House welfare reform bill written by the Republican leadership, requires a number of reports from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and still more reports to be filed by each State. This bill, and the Paperwork Reduction Act, show what can be done if we act in a bipartisan way. The Paperwork Reduction Act amendments passed earlier this year sets out a goal of a 10-percent reduction in paperwork for each Department. In the future, we would be wise to carefully consider reporting requirements in new legislation to see which reports we can do without. Based upon the recent record of this Congress, it appears that more reports than ever are still being required. Congress must police its own paperwork requirements as vigilantly as we expect the administration to curtail its demands on the public. This bill represents a good first step in this process, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, we have no objection.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for allowing a gentleman from Texas to make the nexus with this bill. Let me talk a little bit about H.R. 2366. I know he has been comparing and contrasting this bill with the Speaker's comments in an earlier speech but let me talk about the continuing budget resolution that concerns all of us and to contrast the CR with this bill we are debating today, H.R. 2366. I am glad we have this opportunity to discuss the Speaker's comments and H.R. 2366, because there is a comparison between the two. First, we had the same committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, consider H.R. 2366 and the continuing resolution. Madam Speaker, we also have a continuing resolution passed by the Ways and Means Committee that would increase Medicare premiums from $46.10 to $53.50 a month, which is the same committee from which this bill came. That is why I think there is some concern. That is why I am glad that the gentleman from Ohio has brought up the comparison between what we are doing here today on the shutdown of the Federal Government and the concern about the increase in Medicare premiums with H.R. 2366 that came out of the same committee. I think there is a comparison between the two, because H.R. 2366 deals with a problem that was solved on a bipartisan basis and actually when it is passed, it will be. But the continuing resolution that was passed here was not passed on a bipartisan basis, even though it came out of the same committee. I think H.R. 2366 is a great example of recognizing a problem with the Social Security Act and Medicare and the medical device reporting requirement, and slowing it. Yet again today, because of the veto yesterday of the continuing resolution and recently of the debt ceiling, we have not seen any of the bipartisanship that we should have on H.R. 2366. It was not stated by just myself on the floor but by the President himself, that if we go back to the actual $46.10 a month on a bipartisan basis like we have done on H.R. 2366, we might not see having the Federal Government shut down today and not having lots of Federal employees furloughed. I would hope that the Committee on Ways and Means that sent us H.R. 2366 would also consider working on other even more important legislation, although I think the medical device reporting is important, particularly if you are dealing with pacemakers and folks that need it. But senior citizens also need to be able to afford that Medicare monthly premium. Going from $46.10 to $53.50 is just something that they cannot afford and frankly I applaud the President for vetoing that effort. Again hopefully it will come back to us and the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Commerce can work together so we can have bipartisan resolution to this.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, today the House leadership, and we have heard it already this morning, is in the blame-shifting mode and the only losers are going to be the American people. The majority of the Republicans say they want to save Social Security, but even under their balanced budget proposal in 7 years, they still borrow over $100 billion from the Social Security trust fund. The Government is shutting down and we are inching closer to defaulting on our debt, and who is to blame for the disaster? The blame rests solely with the Republican majority. The reason they need a continuing resolution and the debt limit increase is because the Republican majority failed to finish their work. As of today, only 5 appropriations bills out of 13 have been finished, and only 3 sent to the President. Instead of finishing their work, the Republican majority is saying well, Mr. President, you need to increase Medicare premiums and cut education, or we are shutting down the Government. On September 22, the Washington Post reported Speaker Gingrich saying, ``I don't care what the price is. I don't care if we have no executive offices and no bonds for 30 days, not this time.'' Well, the majority should care. The American people should not be made to pay the price for the Republican majority not doing their work.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority want to shut down Government because they cannot pass their bill that is loaded up like a Christmas tree. They have not passed the majority of the appropriations bills, and they are over 40 days late. So what are we going to see? Social Security claims will not be paid. Veterans' benefit checks delayed. National parks closed. The Republican majority has told the President and the American people, it is our way or no way. Well, the voters sent the message last Tuesday and by the polls show that by 2 to 1 they are rejecting the Republican extremism. We support a balanced budget, but not at the expense of cutting Medicare, education funds, and student loans.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the folks to direct their attention to the poster, during the 1980's, over $20 billion was removed from our retirement systems because many companies used their pension funds for leveraged buyouts and others were simply taken over so they could raid their pension funds. In 1982, it went from $404 million all the way up to 1985, $6 billion were taken out of pension plans by companies. In 1986, 1988, and 1990, these were effectively brought to a halt because Congress realized that people's pensions were in jeopardy by these raids and these reversions on pension plans. The proposed change in the House reconciliation bill would allow employers to remove assets just like in the 1980's, if their liabilities are less than or more than 125 percent or less than 125 percent. They could remove it for any purpose. Changes in the interest rate and the stock market could change the pension plans to weather their needs. The other body voted 94 to 5 to remove what the House did. I hope our conference committee would also remove it.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join with all the Members and rise strongly to support Senate Concurrent Resolution 31 honoring slain Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. As an Israeli war hero, both during the war of independence in 1948 and also the 1967 war to unite the historic Israeli nation, he served his nation and was an inspiration to people all over the world. Mr. Speaker, I met Prime Minister Rabin several times and I was impressed not only with his commitment and dedication to his nation's security, but also to the realization that peace was not only in the interest of the Palestinians, but also in the interest of the Israelis. He, more than any person I think I have ever met, Mr. Speaker, exemplifies a verse in the Old Testament, Isaiah 2:4: He will judge between nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, later tonight my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota, Earl Pomeroy, will come before the House on a special order for an hour, and talk about his concern and his experience as a former insurance commissioner in his State on the effort to [[Page H 11914]] support and protect American pensions. I rise tonight to talk about that and congratulate my colleague in his effort. About 2 weeks ago--October 27--the Senate, by an overwhelming vote of 94 to 5, agreed to drop the pension reversion provision from the budget reconciliation legislation. In a bipartisan show of support for the working people of this country, the Senate said no to allowing companies to pilfer the savings of Americans. Today, I join my colleagues in urging the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to delete the House pension reversion provision from the budget reconciliation legislation. This type of provision does not belong in reconciliation. This provision should be addressed separately and the committees with jurisdiction and substantial interest should have time to hold hearings on the proposal. This Republican proposal will allow companies to take money from employee pension plans that they say are more than 125 percent funded. These excess pension assets--the funds not needed to pay immediate pension benefits--can be used freely for purposes that are certainly not in the interest of retirees. Allowing companies to strip so-called surplus pension assets from employee pension plans will take us back to the 1980's, when companies took away more than $20 billion from over 2,000 pension plans, covering nearly 2.5 million workers and retirees. history of pension reversions Prior to the 1980's, the reversions of pension assets to employers were almost nonexistent. Pension assets were returned to employers only after the plan had been terminated, and after all benefits to plan participants were paid. However, as pension assets grew with the rising stock market in the 1980's, corporations began to take the excess pension funds. In 1983, the Reagan administration issued guidelines making pension reversions easier. From 1982 to 1990, over $20 billion was taken from 2,000 retirement plans covering 2.5 million workers and retirees. From 1982 to 1985, the size and the number of reversions grew rapidly: $404 million reverted in 1982 to $6.7 billion reverted in 1985. As retirees were left without an adequate retirement, Congress took strong action to stem the tide of pension reversions. Beginning in 1986, Congress imposed a series of excise taxes: a 10-percent excise tax on the amount of the reversion in the Tax Reform Act of 1986; a 15- percent excise tax in the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988; and, in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, and 20 percent tax when the employer established a successor pension plan with similar benefits, or a 50 percent tax if no successor plan was established. With these congressional measures, the number and size of reversions fell substantially. effect of reversion on the american worker This Republican proposal will encourage employers to take billions of dollars out of pension plans, leaving them with insufficient funds to protect current and future retirees. Money previously set aside for workers' retirement will now be pocketed by corporations and used for almost any purpose. The removal of these funds from pension plans increases the risk of loss to workers, retirees and their beneficiaries just at a time when the need for a strong private pension system is great. Pension funds are not the employers' money. Workers pay for pension fund contributions with lower wages. Under current pension and tax regulations, pension funds are in trust to be used only for the exclusive benefit of workers and retirees, and should not be considered as employer piggy banks. This irresponsible provision encourages employers to take workers' pensions. This proposal is bad public policy. A pension plan with excess assets today, can quickly become underfunded if those assets are taken away. Because most pension plans are tied to the stock market, any downward turn will have a negative effect on the plan. In addition, a reduction in the interest rate of 1 percentage point together with an asset reduction of 10 percent reduces the funding level from 125 to 96 percent. conclusion The American people have spoken. Taking money away from pension plans is wrong. Let's not permit companies to take pension assets from the American worker. Let's ensure that pensions will be safe and available for those who saved for their retirement. I urge the reconciliation conferees to delete this dangerous provision.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from California, as a new Member of this House, talked about the balanced budget. But in 1992, under the Republican leadership, we had a $290 billion deficit. And last year, under this current year, we have $164 billion. It is going in the right direction without cutting Medicare and Medicaid. It is now November 8, 40 days after the beginning of the fiscal year and only 5 days before the current continuing resolution expires. And what have we seen under this revolutionary Congress? We only have two bills that have been signed into appropriations bills, 40 days late for our fiscal year. Is that fiscal responsibility? We are aiming for default by the extremist Republican majority. In fact, only two bills at 5 percent of the Federal discretionary funding have been approved. What we are seeing is gambling with the stability of our economic system in the United States based on the Republican majority. They are too busy cutting Medicare, cutting education funding to make government do its job, and that is really to have a balanced budget.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference committee report in its entirety of Senate bill 395, based on three reasons. One, it is safe for offshore drilling. We are only dealing with new leases or expanded leases, and also the jobs and economic growth that my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, talked about. Let me explain. We are talking about the impact on the current budget and this resolution will help balance our budget. The agreement requires the Department of the Interior to exempt from royalties only new leases, or expanded production; it is production that may not be utilized. We may not receive one penny in royalty, but if they do expand it, if they do have new leases, we will see additional revenue. That is where I see the plus for our Treasury. This resolution also talks about expanded production under existing leases, but it mandates some of the royalty exemptions if the Interior Secretary determines this production will not be economic without royalty relief. We are giving the Department of the Interior the ability to say, ``If you will do it, then we will give you that benefit.'' We are really just letting them say, ``OK, depend on the market, and if it will work, it will help the Treasury and also help in the creation of jobs.'' Let me talk about offshore drilling, because in Texas we do that a lot. I go to Galveston, TX, and see the wells out there and I am concerned, like everyone else, about the pollution in our waters. But, in the latest study I have, it shows that offshore oil production is responsible for only 2 percent of spills, whereas transportation is 45 percent of whatever pollution may be, and waste and runoff is 36 percent. We can solve a lot of problems with pollution of our waterways and our bodies of water if we just clean up what we put into the sewers, but the offshore production is one of the safest, ways to produce energy. We have had production off our coasts, successful production. Again, this would benefit not only those of us who live along the Gulf Coast, but would also benefit the economic security of our Nation. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I encourage the adoption of the conference committee report.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], my colleague on the committee, for his genuine concern and dedication to education. But even with that I must oppose his amendment. Major authorizing legislation like this should be given careful consideration in a separate bill and obviously should not be attached as an amendment to an appropriations bill. It should go through the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities that I serve on with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. I believe that the proposal should go through that committee and have full hearings. In fact, the Gunderson amendment could actually be instituted by the local community without having to have the structure coming through this Congress. They can create their own programs that they want to, and it does not have to be through the U.S. Treasury. They could do that if they wanted to, without this Congress telling them. Let the local people make the decision, whether it be in my district or here in D.C. The Gunderson amendment could have dramatic effect because of the private school issue and the Constitution. But let me also say that the concern I have is it may be cherry-picking or picking good students out of the D.C. school district and only to go to certain other school districts. I am concerned because we need those children in the public schools.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yesterday my Republican colleague followed me here and talked about the difference between the debt and the deficit. Well, I know very well the difference between the debt and the deficit. I know we have almost a $5 trillion debt. The deficit, though, in 1992 under a Republican President was $290 billion. For that year, that deficit. Last year it was only $163 billion. That is what I call progress, and it was not done during the 1980's. In fact, during the 1980's, our debt exploded to that $4.9 trillion or whatever it is. But the truth is really out. We need to balance our budget, but we do not need to do it on the backs of education or Medicare, and that is wrong. That is what the American people are saying in all the polls. Mr. Speaker, the comments of our Speaker and also the leader of the other body last Sunday in the Washington Post demonstrate the true sentiments of the Republicans on the Medicare plan. Cut health care for seniors as much as necessary to pay for that tax cut, not balancing the budget but for a tax cut. It is disgusting to see a PR campaign used to provide for a tax cut. Mr. Speaker, I hope the conference committee and the President will veto that plan.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Members, we hear talk about the 7-year balanced budget and the 10-year balanced budget. We did not develop the debt that we have or the deficit in 7 years or even 10 years. In fact, in the 1980's, the deficit exploded, but it took us decades to get the financial house in the shape that we have it now. In fact, in 1992, the last year of a Republican administration in the White House, we had a $290 billion deficit. This year, that deficit is down to $163 billion. Now, whether we talk about 7 years or 10 years, that is all a political game. What we are talking about is that we reduced the deficit under a Democratic President, without cutting Medicare, without cutting education, and without raiding the pension plans. We do not need to let Medicare wither on the vine, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me also compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing that up and if he would look at what Secretary Reich has said. That bill that we passed here, there is no mandate from the Department of Labor on any of those investments in housing. But the argument should be I would rather them invest in housing here than in Beirut, Lebanon where some of them may get the same rate of return they would instead of downtown Houston. I rise tonight to support the motion to instruct. I support a balanced budget but not the effort that the majority is trying to do. It is ironic that our Speaker and supporters approved this budget plan just a few days before Halloween and here we are going to have it tomorrow. When one looks at the facts, it is clear that their budget and their rhetoric are the ones that are scaring the American people. They are scaring seniors on Medicare, college students and the workers who are depending on those pensions instead of this raid on the pension plans. Perhaps the single biggest trick is that the Republicans are cutting Medicare by $270 billion in order to pay for the $245 billion budget- busting tax cut. The fact is that Medicare is cut to pay for tax cuts is highlighted by the Medicare cuts are 3 times greater than what the Medicare trustees have said they needed to do to ensure Medicare solvency to the year 2006. If you do not think that is scary enough, listen to this from a distinguished Member from the other body: I was there fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, 1 out of about 12 because we knew it would not work in 1965. And from a Member of our own body: ``Now we don't get rid of it,'' that is being the Medicare they are trying to save supposedly, ``in round one because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think it's the right way to go through a transition period. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it.'' Voluntarily leave Medicare? The budget plan will force seniors out of Medicare. That is not voluntary. It is forcing them out. The promises from the Republicans to strengthen and preserve Medicare are scary Halloween tricks on senior citizens. Let me remind Members what the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] said, that in 1990 we had a $290 billion deficit on a yearly basis. This last year without one Republican vote we had $164 billion.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, 11,207 would see increases in taxes from earned income tax credit, but also your district would benefit from the increased taxes.