Gene Green

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me address some of the concerns that the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez] has raised and the other side has raised. Mr. Chairman, they talk about the amendment, but let me read it for the Members of the House who may not be on the floor who are watching this. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the investment by an employee benefit plan, within the meaning of paragraph 3 of the ERISA, in domestic investments as distinguished for foreign investments. I do not understand why they are so worked up in opposing it, unless that is their concern. Granted, they are stretching to pass this bill. They are stretching to say that people invested foreign because of the 1990 tax bill. I did not read their lips in 1990, and I hope I did not this year. But by stretching to oppose this amendment, by using that, all we are saying is that when you are comparing apples to apples, let us do it domestically. That is all this amendment asks for. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues can come up with any other interpretation. Frankly, I do not understand why they are opposing the amendment, but I appreciate the support of the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as we heard earlier in the debate on H.R. 1594, this is a bill that is unneeded, because there have been no mandates, but this amendment, if we are going to pass an unneeded bill, would make sure for those investment managers that it is clarified. The amendment that we are considering seeks to accomplish one simple action. This amendment ensures that domestic investments are not prohibited under H.R. 1594. It ensures that American pension managers will not be afraid to invest in America and in American jobs. The amendment was read and it is in the Record, so all we are saying is that nothing in this amendment shall be construed as prohibiting the investment by an employee benefit plan in domestic investments, as distinguished from foreign investments. Mr. Chairman, I am vested in a private pension plan. I am sure when I am 65 it is not going to provide as much as I would like, but I am one of those people who invested in it. And I do not want them to take chances with my money. I want to make sure they maximize the investment so I have as much as I can when I am 65. However, I also want to make sure and I want them to have the encouragement to invest in the United States, instead of going overseas. My concern in this bill, if given a choice with the same risk, if this bill passes, someone who is a prudent investment manager may say, ``I can get 15 percent in building houses somewhere overseas and maybe 15 percent in the city of Houston,'' they will go overseas because of the restrictions of this bill. I want to make sure that that is not the question. I want them to build those houses in Houston, TX, or Cleveland, OH, or anywhere else if the risk is the same as going overseas. That is why we need to adopt this amendment. H.R. 1594 repeals an interpretive bulletin that says that pension managers may consider collateral benefits where the risk and return otherwise meet the prudent standard. In doing so, H.R. 1594 clearly discourages and may effectively forbid the consideration of collateral benefits by U.S. fund managers. In fact, this bill, if read the way it could be interpreted, could ban pension fund investments in mortgage pools, such as those guaranteed by the Federal National Mortgage Association, holding the trustees legally liable if they authorize such investments, so we would hope they would encourage investments in mortgages in the United States. To avoid that potential liability, pension plans may be reluctant to invest in these American investments that have collateral benefits. Everything has a collateral benefit, Mr. Chairman. When the State of Connecticut, and I notice the other side did not mention that, invested in a firearms industry, because that is a major job producer in Connecticut, I am glad they did; but I notice in their talking and discussing about it, they did not talk about that investment. They talked about some other investments that did not pan out. I wish I could say that every investment all of us individually or as fund managers invested in was good. Some pay a higher percentage because they have a higher risk. That is what we want, is to take a little higher risk, but for higher benefits for those of us who are the ones who are going to benefit from it. For 20 years pension fund managers have been building up solid portfolios in these economically targeted investments that diversify their holdings and provide a competitive rate of return. They create those jobs locally and incur no unusual investment risk. My amendment provides once and for all that nothing in H.R. 1594 prohibits that employee benefit plan from investing domestically. As it is, pension plans have been increasingly investing overseas, and as Members will see from this chart, U.S. pension funds are increasing from 3.7 percent in 1989 to 8 percent in 1994. It is projected to go to 12 percent foreign investment in 1999. What I do not want us to do is to encourage that by passing this bill. That is roughly $800 billion of our money that is being invested overseas when it could be invested here at the same rate of return. Let us make it clear, if this bill is enacted, a pension fund manager, faced with two choices of equivalent investment, one in the United States and one abroad, the safe course would be to invest abroad, because of 1594. Let us correct that by passing this amendment. The failure of this amendment today would only encourage litigation, cost more for those of us who are vested in these pension plans, and call into question whether we are going to invest in creating American jobs in our country. This bill would throw a legal shadow over a decision to invest in a hometown or State, but would not affect a pension fund if it is doing the same thing in foreign securities or foreign countries. It is irresponsible for this Congress to talk about Social Security when Social Security cannot invest in anything but Government bonds. If we want to do it, let the majority come up and say ``We are going to do that,'' but let us invest our pension fund in our country at a competitive rate. Let us keep American investment here at home. Let us vote yes to create more jobs, and vote for the Green amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Lord help us, I hope they do not get to privatize the space program; they will be building it in Taiwan.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just heard the earlier speaker talk about the quiche and chardonnay crowd. Mr. Chairman, and my colleague from California, I represent the beer and barbecue crowd, and they are concerned about their pensions. I want to get this straight because I have heard today about how they are concerned about the pensions of those working folks. These are the same folks that are cutting job training, they want to abolish the minimum wage, they want to cut education funding, and now they are going to encourage pension plans to invest overseas so they will transfer those jobs overseas; is that correct?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague on the committee for yielding me some time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1594. I would like to ask the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] some questions. This bill comes at a time whose time has not come. The bill attacks something that is not existent. It is a straw man--or a straw person in inside-the-Beltway language--that is created by the Joint Economic Committee and talks about force. In fact, I just got this report today that in its conclusion it says by forcing pension fund managers. Nowhere in the Department of Labor do they force pension fund managers to do anything. This bill was created to create a political issue and nothing else. H.R. 1594 repeals an Interpretive Bulletin that pension managers consider collateral benefits where the risk and return otherwise meet the prudent standard. Last year the Department of Labor issued Interpretive Bulletin 94-1 stating that it was permissible for a pension fund to invest in economically targeted investments under limited conditions. This bulletin made it clear that a pension fund may consider ETI's only if the risk adjusted return was comparable to alternative investments. The pension fund could not invest in ETI's if the return were less or the risk greater than comparable alternatives. There is absolutely no force and no mandates in ETI's. That is what makes this committee report from the Joint Economic Committee not worth the paper it is printed on. If an investment meets the prudent standard, what is wrong with using American pension fund assets to invest in America and in American jobs? This bulletin goes back to the Reagan administration. It is not something that President Clinton has created. The Department of Labor's position on ETI's is not new. Interpretive Bulletin 94-1 simply restates the Department's position for over 20 years spanning both Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, the recommendation to issue the interpretive bulletin on ETI's was originally proposed by the ERISA Advisory Council, appointed by President Bush's administration. In a letter to Congressman Saxton, Ronald D. Watson, a member and later chairman of the ERISA Advisory Council, states: The conclusion that ETI's can have a place in pension portfolios was reached by a cautious and instinctively conservative group of advisers under a Republican administration. It is being promoted by a Democratic administration which happens to agree with the conclusions. The effects of H.R. 1594 would be devastating on pension managers. It clearly discourages and may effectively forbid consideration of collateral benefits by U.S. pension managers. To avoid potential liability, pension plans would be reluctant to invest in American investments that have collateral benefits, even though they may have competitive risk adjusted returns and otherwise meet the standards of ERISA. The result would be increased pension plan investments in foreign investments that is already increasing. In addition, this bill is one-sided, saying the Department of Labor must not encourage or promote ETI's. The bill is obviously an attempt to silence the Department of Labor. We need to make if they are going to be silenced on everything instead of just one thing. Let us put partisan politics aside. It is irresponsible for Congress to discourage investment in America. I would rather them build housing in the United States than build housing overseas at the comparable investment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, next Monday I will visit an elementary school, Franklin Elementary School, which is in my district in Houston. This is a school which demonstrates the need for a Federal role in education. The schools in my district are not wealthy. They rely on Federal education dollars to supplement the State and local funding that they receive. Because of the funding problems that are all too common around the country, not just in Texas, the State and local money just is not enough to provide these children the education, the facilities, and resources these children deserve. And yet, these kids, their parents, and their teachers kept plugging away. In 1994, the percentage of the students passing a State exam was 35 to 59 percent. In 1995, the percentage rose to 75 to 89 percent. How did this happen? With a dedicated principal, hard-working teachers, involved parents, and extra work on Saturdays, the students did it. This is an inner-city school that receives chapter I funds. This is a school in which 98 percent of the students receive subsidized breakfast or lunch. In response to their commitment and success, the majority is cutting their funding. And I would like to say: ``Welcome back, kids. Along with the seniors, you are on the majority's hit list.''

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, the value of a college education is unquestioned in our society yet the Republican majority has decided that a college education should only be granted to those with enough cash to pay up front. By reducing the funding available to the Federal student loan program, 5 million undergraduate students will see increased costs for their college education. Again, the Republicans are asking a generation of Americans who did not run up our debt to pay the cost of reducing the deficit. The message is simple. If your parents are wealthy, you can expect the finest education anywhere in the world. However, if you are from a working class family you can expect to work harder, make less, and have no hope of a college education unless you can manage to work full-time while you go to school just to pay the interest on your college debt. This is the most profound attack on the American dream in over 20 years. By eliminating the opportunity of a college education, the Republicans are sentencing millions of young Americans to the McJob market: low pay, no benefits, no potential for growth. In essence, the cuts in higher education equal an attack on the standard of living for every American. A less [[Page H 8353]] educated society demands less in the terms of salary and cheap labor results in mega-profits. We are no longer in the era of sending jobs overseas for cheap labor, the Republicans are attempting to grow their own cheap labor right here in the United States by ensuring that the children of the well-off get educated and the children off the middle class and working class become the cheap labor force of the future.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding me this time. I serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and am proud to serve there. Like my colleague from Texas himself, I remember where I come from, and I remember in 1965 was the first time we received public Federal education funds at the school that I went to, at Jeff Davis High School in northside Houston. We did not have audiovisual equipment until we got that funding. Nowadays it pays for much more than hardware. It pays for teachers and better education. That is why I wanted to serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. I represent a district that the median income is $20,000, compared to my Republican colleagues which is double that and more. If we are going to increase that level of funding for our families, then we have got to do it with better education. This bill today, cutting it is wrong. The difference between the Democrats who are opposed to this bill and the Republicans is that we remember where we come from and we know what we have to do to provide a better quality of life for the future of the United States, and that is provide more education funding.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, the American people are gradually learning the truth about the Republican Medicare program. As the Wall Street Journal reported 3 days ago, raising Medicare premiums and copayments on seniors is becoming a likely possibility. Republicans are finding that forcing seniors into HMO's may not provide the short-term cost savings they were hoping for, but the Democrats knew all along that the health care reform and Medicare reform should not be treated as a short-term budget exercise. As you will recall, Madam Speaker, the Republicans only started talking about Medicare after their Contract With America rhetoric forced them to, by accident. Then they discovered the impending crisis in medical care, which President Clinton talked about all last year. Madam Speaker, cutting $270 billion is not the way to save Medicare. It is becoming obvious to seniors that including $270 billion in cuts to their benefits and $245 billion in tax cuts in the same budget bill is poor public policy and really a raw deal. This Republican majority Congress wants to balance our budget on the backs of seniors, and today they are cutting programs for our youth. This Congress wants to cut our oldest and youngest, forsake our elders and cut our future. To paraphrase my friend from Ohio, ``Beam me up.'' There is no common sense here in Congress.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I am proud to serve on the committee, the authorizing committee, and let me talk about some of the things that are being cut. The job training, 17 percent less than what was spent last year; dislocated workers, 31 percent less than what was spent last year; the school-to- work that our ranking member talked about, 22 percent. School-to-work is a program designed to be successful because it takes those young people who may graduate from high school and not have anything to do, but it gets them before they get there, so they can have that skill that they will be able to sell. This bill takes away our future because it cuts the job training for the young people. It cuts the adult training for people who are laid off, the dislocated workers. It cuts the summer jobs for next year. I know on the rescission bill we fought long and hard and had summer jobs restored for this year. That is great. But if our chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], said anything, we need more than the 1,000 jobs that we may have in Houston. We need 18,000. I hope private business will step up like he said and do it. But that does not mean we need to cut out the summer jobs that are across the country that are provided by the summer youth program. In Houston we have 6,000 young people who would not be working this summer without that. If we pass this bill today, they will not have that job next summer. We need to triple that amount but not to cut it from the Federal program.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, like a lot of the other colleagues on this side of the aisle, I think this today is a defining moment in our short term in the 104th Congress. We have dealt with a great many of the appropriations bills, but when we see what is happening to the education and job training provisions and the Department of Labor, we see where the intent really is. Like my colleague from Arkansas, who is on the other side of the aisle, I would like to balance the budget and aim for that glide path to a balanced budget. But the way this bill is doing it is the wrong way to do it. We hear every morning in our 1-minutes and all during these appropriations bills how we need to balance the budget, to save our children's futures so our grandchildren and children are not going to have to pay off the debt. This bill cuts job training, education funding, so those children will not be able to have that education to be able to even afford themselves much less pay off the debt. We have to look to the future in our country. That is the beauty of our Nation. We have children that are in elementary school now who are utilizing chapter I funding to be a better citizen 10 years from now, 12 years from now. By voting for this bill today and cutting the funds now instead of expecting that investment in those children, we are cutting off our nose to spite our face. It is amazing that we are willing to say we want to save our children from what they are going to have to pay, and yet we are cutting public education funding and we are cutting student loans.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Members, this rule makes it far too easy for the Republican majority to target children, seniors, and working families with these cuts. What we are seeing is a finalization, I guess, of the budget resolution we passed here earlier that required this bill to have these substantial cuts in education, senior programs, and for children programs and for working families. Let me talk about the education cuts since I serve on that committee here in Congress. This bill that this rule will allow us to consider will cut 48,000 children from Head Start programs, cut the Healthy Start in half, it cuts the Safe and Drug Free Schools by 59 percent, it cuts 1 million children that will not get extra help on their reading and math thanks to the 17-percent cut in chapter 1. In my State of Texas we will lose $66 million on summer jobs programs that we restored this summer, but this appropriations bill will not allow it for the summer of 1996, and that is what is wrong with this bill. Chapter 1 funding; it goes to almost every elementary school in my district in the State of Texas, will be cut $97 million. There are school districts, particularly in poorer parts of Texas and all over the country, who depend on that to provide that extra help for these children who need that extra assistance. Senior citizens' programs are cut in this bill. The programs that we have to provide heating assistance in the winter and cooling assistance in the summer are being cut. Take, for example, what has happened in Chicago this last month or what was happening in Texas up until we had the tropical storm come through, Mr. Speaker. Twelve million meals served to seniors each year are eliminated by cuts in Meals on Wheels and meals that are served in senior citizens' centers that all of us have in all of our districts. Working families; let me talk about the cuts in just the labor side of it. Working families, the cuts; now we may all agree that we need to look at OSHA and a lot of Federal programs, but to cut 33 percent off of job safety is ridiculous, and cut the pension plans. Mr. Speaker, I could talk all day, as my colleagues know, and I appreciate my colleagues' courteousness, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 31, I was in my district conducting a previously scheduled townhall meeting, and, therefore, missed rollcall votes 601 through 607. These events were planned at the time with information from the House leadership that the House would not be casting votes on July 31. I am including in the Record how I would have voted on rollcall votes 601-607. No. 601--``yes''; No. 602--``yes''; No. 603--``yes''; No. 604-- ``no''; No. 605--``yes''; No. 606--``yes''; and No. 607--``no''.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the future of our manned space program. This space station is not, as some people call it, a pork-barrel program. It is the excitement of our era, the international space station. Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, and every school I go into and I talk about space and space exploration, the children light up whether they are in the poorest neighborhoods or the richest neighborhoods. That is the future of our country. The opponents of the space station have argued that this program costs too much. The truth is that every dollar spent on space programs returns at least $2 in direct and indirect benefits. Our commitment to America's future today will accelerate breakthroughs in technology and engineering that will have immediate, practical applications for life on Earth. It will inspire our children, foster the next generation of scientists, engineers, and satisfy humanity's ancient need to explore and achieve. A robust space station program assures our students that they are critical to the Nation--that they are the next generation--and that the thrill of just beginning starts with them whether they are in kindergarten or in the 12th grade. By voting in favor of this space station, again the Obey amendment, my colleagues can confirm their equipment to the science of learning. I ask my colleagues that they base their decision on the art of science and not the art of politics of the moment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, elected officials should listen more and talk less. I listened today while my Republican colleagues talked about how they intend to save Medicare. What they did not say is how they reduce expected needs of Medicare $270 billion over 7 years and still cut taxes $245 billion. Cut taxes, cut Medicare. Does that balance out? Medicare. There is an estimated $44 billion in fraud and abuse in the Medicare system. Maybe we do have some agreement on both sides, and we can cut fraud and abuse and still provide for senior health care. However, it also appears that the new Republican majority is cutting personnel in the Health Care Financing Administration, the GAO, who investigate the fraud in Medicare. Furthermore, the account in the Labor-HHS appropriation bill is $2 million below last year for finding fraud, waste, and abuse. We need to save Medicare by cutting the fraud, but only in Washington can a $270 billion cut be said it is to save the program. We do not need to repeal the original contract with American seniors in 1965. Happy birthday--Medicare.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are accusing Democrats of scaring senior citizens. Seniors should be scared because we do not have a plan yet from the Republicans, only leaked documents that lead us to believe Republicans plan to cut the program substantially. And so I ask one question: Why the secret or the stealth attack on Medicare? Why are the Republicans proposing deep and devastating cuts in the programs for seniors over the next 7 years? Well, they would answer they are trying to save the program from bankruptcy. At least that is what they have been told to say by their pollsters. They are being told to tell them you are saving the program, but they are really gutting it. Let us think back to the last session of Congress, the 103d session, when Republicans attacked the Democratic plan to shore up Medicare. I remember there was not one Republican vote that helped pass that plan. Now let us ask: Why are you raiding Medicare to balance the budget while at the same time providing huge tax cuts that almost equal the same amount that you are cutting for Medicare over the next 7 years? Frankly, if it were up to Republicans, Medicare would not even exist today. But for many years now, Medicare has proven time and time again that it is one of the true success stories of our Government. It has dramatically improved the health care of our seniors and never again will older Americans have to choose between health care and rent or food.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today, and I am glad my colleague from Arizona talked about it, to take exception with the Republican plan to save Medicare. Only in Washington can they say that they are going to save Medicare and cut $270 billion, and then give a $245 billion tax cut. They are telling the American people they are saving the system. Well, that does not play in Houston, TX. Maybe it plays in Arizona. We are smarter than that. I have a letter from a senior citizen in my district. She had an ear infection and went to an HMO, which is what they want to force senior citizens to go to. She had to wait 2 months before she could see a doctor for an ear infection. That is a long time to have your ear hurt. I think the Republicans are moving too fast when they talk about even waiting until September to change senior citizen health care to managed care. Still they want to give that $245 billion tax cut and cut $270 billion in growth in Medicare. Only in Washington can somebody get away with saying we are saving the system, but we are cutting $270 billion.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the pollsters have told the Republicans they need to start telling the American people they are saving the Medicare system. But do you save it by cutting it by $270 billion? The American people are not stupid. The American people can clearly see that a $270 billion cut to their senior citizen health care system to finance a tax break is not saving the system. Only in ``Washington speak'' could the Republicans say this: We are cutting $270 billion from the Medicare system in order to save it from bankruptcy. And by the way, we are giving a $245 billion tax cut. But we are really saving Medicare by cutting it. How can the Republican majority make this palatable? They say, ``Tell the American people this is a steep cut to `save' the system.'' Great idea, but the people in my district are much smarter than that. You do not save Medicare by cutting $270 billion from it. The Republicans are not trying to save the Medicare system any more than Hugh Grant was asking for directions.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 17, and Tuesday, July 18, I was in my district and had townhall meetings originally scheduled, and missed rollcall votes 500 through 516. These events were planned prior to the change in the calendar. I missed these votes. I would like to put in the Record my intentions for voting and also my votes, as follows: Intended votes of Gene Green--104th Congress Rollcall Vote 500.............................................................Yes 501..............................................................No 502..............................................................No 503..............................................................No 504..............................................................No 505.............................................................Yes 506.............................................................Yes 507.............................................................Yes 508.............................................................Yes 509.............................................................Yes 510..............................................................No 511.............................................................Yes 512..............................................................No 513.............................................................Yes 514..............................................................No 515..............................................................No 516..............................................................No

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have a plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare between now and the year 2002. During that same period, they plan to cut at least $245 billion in taxes for the most affluent in our country. Does that sound like they are concerned about the senior citizens in our country? The Republicans claim that Democrats are engaging in scare tactics. [[Page H 6746]] They want the public to believe that $270 billion in Medicare cuts will be pain-free and that seniors will be better off, maybe even have more freedom. Seniors have the freedom of choice right now. They can go to their own doctor. They can go to their own hospital. Let me reiterate to my Republican colleagues, this is free enterprise. I think the public would be a little more confident in the Republican promises if the Medicare cuts were driven by a genuine health care concern instead of the balanced budget. Medicare is not bankrupt any more than the Defense Department is bankrupt. If you want to have senior citizen health care, you have to pay for it. You have to pay for it every year just like we have to pay for the Defense Department. The Medicare system is not bankrupt. We just need to have the guts to pay for it.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the Medicare Select bill as it first came up, and now I intend to support the conference committee report. But I have some concern about it, in light of the big picture. That is what we need to look at today on this House floor. I hope the American people are looking at it, particularly those people who are senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution was passed yesterday, planning $270 billion in cuts in Medicare, and at the same time providing tax cuts of $245 billion. I do not think it makes sense that today, the very next day, we have a conference committee report on Medicare Select, which supplements the same Medicare Program that was cut yesterday. Those of us who support the HMO concept and managed care, still support the individual making that decision. However, with what happened yesterday and what will happen over the next few years, we will see that freedom of choice for our seniors and future seniors limited. It has not happened yet, but we are setting the stage for it, as we stand here. I represent the city of Houston in Harris County. We have 286,000 seniors who receive over $1.5 billion in Medicare payments. A $270 billion cut nationally over the next few years will impact those seniors. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans seem to not understand that health care costs are going up, and they are going up because we are an aging population. To cut those seniors, the growth, as they say, will force them to go into more managed care and into Medicare Select like we are seeing today. We are voting on the conference committee report that offers seniors hopefully the goal of more coverage under the HMO and more expansion, but the secret of the HMO concept for seniors is freedom of choice, their freedom of choice to go into it, not somebody in Washington, a bureaucrat or even their elected Members of Congress saying, ``You have to go to a Medicare Select plan.'' Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what we are talking about today. We will see over the next few years senior citizens being forced into the Medicare Select or other HMO programs, removing that freedom of choice as part of the way to save that $270 billion. That is what people need to understand. That is the fear I hear from my constituents at home. Mr. Speaker, last Monday I was with a hundred senior citizens in the city of Houston. Some of them were in the Medicare Select or the HMO that is offered by a number of private contractors. Some of them were happy with it. However, they wanted to make sure it was their choice, not the choice of the U.S. Congress or that of some bureaucrat. We promised Medicare in 1965. Frankly, if we waited for the Republican majority to provide for Medicare back then, it would not be here today. I guess what I am concerned about is the forced cuts, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the budget bill passed yesterday with the change in the Consumer Price Index, and again in light of what is happening today with this bill. We will see the Consumer Price Index readjusted to where the cost of living increases in Social Security will be reduced. That reduction, with the increase in Medicare expenditures, will cost senior citizens who are now receiving it, and again those who are growing into it, those 60-year-olds, those 55-year-olds who are looking forward to be able to have some type of security and having medical care when they are over 65. I like the idea of Medicare select, Mr. Speaker, but I do not like the idea when we encompass everything together with the cuts we will see and the forced choices those people are going to have to make. I think that is what we need to be concerned about. I would hope over the Fourth of July recess and over the next couple of months and even over the next few years, because this will not happen today or tomorrow or next week, but it will surely happen with the budget vote yesterday to cut $270 billion out of the growth of Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of our Members remember that, when we vote for this bill.