Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this proposal which is before us to deal with Cuba is primarily a bill dealing with property rights. It is in my opinion not a good bill, but this particular amendment, this substitute, deals with only one provision of that proposal which is before us, and that is to open up the possibility of sale of medical supplies, instruments, medical literature, and foodstuffs to Cuba. Now presently the embargo allows the donation of those kinds of things to Cuba. It puts no prohibition against that. But the fact is that we cannot through the charity system deal with the medical needs of Cuba. Mr. Chairman, I have been in Cuba, I have visited clinics, I have visited hospitals, I have been to the medical schools, and it is clear to me that the Cuban people are suffering tremendously because of the shortage of modern-day medical supplies, and instrumentation, and pharmaceuticals. Now it is inconceivable to me that a country 90 miles from our shores, when we, the United States, have in many places in the world insisted on international humanitarian standards being applied, would withhold from the Cuban people those things which are available to people in the United States. Mr. Chairman, I could give my colleagues many examples, but let us just take the issue of asthma. Asthma is a disease that makes it difficult for people to breathe. There is one of the highest rates of asthma in Cuba, and they are short of the kind of medication you need to make it possible to open up people's breathing passages so they can breathe. Now anybody who ever had asthma understands how awful that is, especially for children. The feeling in one's chest that they cannot breathe is something that any parent, looking at his own child, would never want his child to have, and yet we, by our Government policy, say that our pharmaceutical companies cannot sell the medication to the Cubans that is necessary so that parents can give to their children medication to relieve that dreadful disease. That is absolutely against anything that we as Americans hold ourselves out to the world as believing, and I do not think that that is the public policy that the U.S. Congress wants us to be espousing. A patient came to me or a Cuban family came to me and told me about a cousin who was in Cuba who has leukemia. There is a treatment at the Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle where people can have that leukemia treated, and the success rate is about 90 percent. That medication is not readily available in Cuba, and their family member did not have access to that. Now, there is no reason why that should not be available. Mr. Chairman, my distinguished opponents will say the medication can be donated to some hospital, some church hospital or something. I do not know, but that simply does not apply to the whole medical system in Cuba. We cannot, through donations, expect that the Sisters of Charity or whatever are going to deliver these kind of very specialized treatments if they are not available through what is essentially a government health care system. By refusing to accept this amendment, we, as Members of the United States Congress, are saying to Cuban families, we, this bastion of democracy and humanitarianism, are going to withhold from people the ability to take care of their children and members of their family. There is no argument that I can see that would make possible that kind of a statement by the U.S. Congress. It is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I offer this. I oppose a lot of the other parts of the bill, but I did not touch those. I simply touched the thing that I think is the hardest and absolutely indefensible, in my opinion. As a physician, and if others have ever taken care of a kid and looked into the eyes of parents and recognized that we have the capacity to help them with their kid, and have been able to do it in this country, one can imagine what it is like in a country where we know that there is the medication available, but it is simply, because of the U.S. embargo, it is not available in another's country, and that child is going to either suffer or die. That is simply not what I think as an American we want our policy toward Cuba to be. We want democracy. There is nobody on this floor who is supporting Mr. Castro. None of us think that is a good idea. Anybody who tries to paint that as the attack on us is simply misrepresenting the facts. But in our process of pushing to change the situation in Cuba, we cannot use medicine and food staples as a way of doing that. Mr. Chairman, the fact they cannot get modern textbooks, modern medical textbooks, why should they have to be dealing with a textbook from 1949 simply because we place an embargo on them? I think this is a good amendment and urge the adoption of it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, do we have the right to close?

Mr. McDERMOTT. I am, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the brutal assassination of Chief Minister Beant Singh of Punjab, India. Sikh terrorists assassinated Mr. Singh and 15 of his security officers on August 31, 1995. This ghastly act of violence was a very sad day for the people of Punjab. Mr. Singh worked tirelessly during his 2-year tenure to bring the rule of law back to the beleaguered Punjabi province. Political figures from across the Indian political spectrum have rallied together to condemn this terrorist act. We in the U.S. Congress must do the same. We are all aware of the reports of the Members who lend credence to the so-called Council of Khalistan. It is intolerable for U.S. politicians to support Sikh militancy for the sake of domestic politics. Mr. Singh was not a man of violence. He was, in fact, responsible for the decreased level of tension in Punjab over the last few years. A great leader and a great statesman, Beant Singh was responsible for many social programs designed to ameliorate the quality of life of his constituents. During his term as Chief Minister, some of India's largest companies injected more than 250 billion rupees into Punjab. Mr. Singh's social program agenda was no less industrious. He established scholarships for needy students, increased benefits for the elderly, and constructed a better quality of housing throughout the entire region. Sikhs and Hindus alike in Punjab will suffer equally from the assassination of this fine man. Mr. Singh's loss will set back prospects for peace in Punjab considerably. We can only hope that our colleagues will recognize that the security problem in Punjab is real. The threat from Sikh militants is great, and peace will never be achieved through assassination and violence.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vehement opposition to this year's Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 1977). By slashing the amount of money the nation spends on protecting various species and their environment, this bill will set back many of the gains the nation already has made in ensuring that our children and grandchildren have a healthy environment in which to live. Make no mistake, this bill is the first step by the Republican majority to effectively gut and make useless the Endangered Species Act--an act that has successfully balanced economic development with necessary environmental concerns across the country for almost 25 years. In fact, over the last 22 years, there have been fewer than 12 court cases concerning habitat modification while countless sustainable compromises have proven ESA's effectiveness. I am not just talking about preserving ESA moneys so that future strip malls aren't built on wetlands or timber companies clear cut too close to salmon habitat. We need these species for the future because we know how [[Page H 6944]] much the vast spectrum of life has helped us in the past. Right now, ESA protects plant life which may cure diseases such as AIDS. Fifty percent of prescription medicines sold in the United States contain at least one compound originally derived from plants, microbes, fungi and other obscure species. These medicines play a vital role in fighting cancers, heart disease, and other infectious diseases and have produced considerable economic benefits as well. Yet, despite the many gains made under the ESA, the Republicans are using the appropriations process as a devious back door strategy to silently eliminate the ESA by no longer funding its activities. Just take a look at what they're doing. They are eliminating--zeroing out--the money used for prelisting and listing species. Money crucial for minimizing conflicts between economic development and specie extinction. Countless other funds for ensuring that specie habitat can be saved--including money for essential land acquisition--have been dramatically reduced as well. Mr. Speaker, since ESA has been enacted, the country has made terrific strides in protecting the environment. Strides that have provided both economic and environmental success. Let's not make a 180 degree turn and destroy the progress we have made by allowing bills like this to become law. I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort by the Republican majority to undermine the ESA and threaten the Nation's environment. I urge you to vote ``no.''

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vehement opposition to this year's Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 1977). By slashing the amount of money the Nation spends on protecting various species and their environment, this bill will set back many of the gains the Nation already has made in ensuring that our children and grandchildren have a healthy environment in which to live. Make no mistake, this bill is the first step by the Republican majority to effectively gut and make useless the Endangered Species Act--an act that has successfully balanced economic development with necessary environmental concerns across the country for almost 25 years. In fact, over the last 22 years, there have been fewer than 12 court cases concerning habitat modification while countless sustainable compromises have proven ESA's effectiveness. [[Page H 6942]] I am not just talking about preserving ESA moneys so that future strip malls aren't built on wetlands or timber companies clearcut too close to salmon habitat. We need these species for the future because we know how much the vast spectrum of life has helped us in the past. Right now, ESA protects plant life which may cure diseases such as AIDS. Fifty percent of prescription medicines sold in the United States contain at least one compound originally derived from plants, microbes, fungi, and other obscure species. These medicines play a vital role in fighting cancers, heart disease, and other infectious diseases and have produced considerable economic benefits as well. Yet, despite the many gains made under the ESA, the Republicans are using the appropriations process as a devious back-door strategy to slightly eliminate the ESA by no longer funding its activities. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this bill on that basis alone.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I hope that all the Members in the Congress let their constituents know they have to let the Congress know no on vouchers for Medicare. Vouchers in the Medicare system are guaranteed to be inadequate. That is what it is all about. That is how they are saving money, and people need to let their representatives know. I hope they will all call them, write them letters, tell them that they want to keep the kind of security that they presently have under the Medicare program. Thank you very much for your help.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I think you raise again that issue, and I think it doesn't--we don't say it often enough. We are all in one family, and it is easy sometimes for people who are younger to somehow think that this is not affecting them, that what is going to happen, well, that is the Medicare program, that is for old people, but the fact is that it has been lifting the burden off the younger people and they are suddenly going to wind up with it suddenly being dropped down on them without them being aware, unless they begin paying attention. That, I think, is our biggest job as Members of Congress is to educate people about the fact that Medicare, although it has as its clients the disabled and the senior citizen, it is also a part of the economic security of the 35 year old. And sometimes young people sort of miss that. They don't see the connection because in their lifetime they have never had to do it. I remember when I was much younger, my grandmother and grandfather back in the 1950's did not have Medicare, and the way my father and the uncles took care of it was every Sunday when they went to my grandmother's house, they would slide a ten dollar bill under the plate. My grandmother was too proud to ever ask for money but when she picked up the dishes after lunch, she picked up 50 bucks around the table. That is how the subsidy was done in those days, and what this is going to do is drive that same system back on every family to look at their mother, their father, their grandparents and say, how are we going to take care of them? We can't just walk away from them, and that is, I think, why this is not just a senior citizen question, but it is a family question. And I think that you bring that well when you talk about that it isn't just Mr. and Mrs. 65; it is also Mr. and Mrs. 35.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I want to thank my colleague. You have raised a very, very important point that I did not emphasize enough because as a physician, I sometimes forget it. The health care system in this country has worked. The average age when they started Social Security for a man at death was 59 in 1935. Today the average age is almost 80. It is around 77, something like that. So we are talking about extending people's life-span by some 20 years since that period of time, largely because of programs like the Medicare program. And the major thing you are talking abut I think that is so important is the whole issue of prevention. What we had before, everybody gets health care in this country. When you are sick, when you are really sick, they call the ambulance and drag your body in and there you are in the emergency room. Everybody gets health care at that point. But that is at the wrong time in the most costly way possible. What Medicare has made possible for seniors is to have preventive care; that is, to monitor the blood pressure, to monitor the glaucoma, to monitor all the things that have been problems in the past and wind up in these serious debilitating episodes like strokes. We spend millions of dollars on strokes that can be prevented with some blood pressure medication that is monitored on a regular basis, and Medicare has made that possible. Now, what the Republicans are proposing is that each year seniors would have to come up with more money out of their pocket to buy the same health care that they now have under the Medicare program. The voucher value would be less than the actual cost. In 1996, the average cost to a senior citizen would be $67. You say, well that is not very much, so what is the big deal? The next year it is $254. The next year, $447. What the Republicans are trying to do is slide this in in the first year where it isn't going to cost them any more. They will get the same thing for the voucher cost, but by the fourth or fifth year, you will be up to $645, and by the year 2002, it will cost you almost $1,140 a year per person more for the same health care benefit you have today and it will all come out of your pocket. [[Page H 6903]] Now, if you think about people who, when you are working regularly and you get a paycheck, you don't think about, well, you know, $67. I mean, I probably could squeeze and make it. But when you are a senior citizen living on a fixed income on a social security check, you are talking about people who are going to have trouble simply making it, much less coming up with this additional amount of money out of their pocket. And I believe that what is happening here that people fail to understand, and in these early years it looks pretty good, but the further out you get, you can say, well, I won't be here in 7 years. But some more and more people are going to be here and they are going to catch the brunt of this.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Yes.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss the impact of the proposed Republican Medicare and Medicaid cuts on American families and the health delivery system as a whole. The American people have heard a great deal of rhetoric from the Republicans about how Medicare must be cut to save the trust fund. The Republicans want you to believe that they are being forced to make drastic cuts in your Medicare benefits because the system is about to collapse. But the first thing I want to say to you tonight is that the Republican Medicare cuts have nothing whatsoever to do with saving the Medicare trust fund. We can all agree that health care costs in general and Medicare costs in particular must be contained to assure long-term security for our Nation and its senior citizens. In fact, if the Republicans were to be totally honest, they would tell you that the real problem for Medicare comes in 2010 when the first of the baby-boomers enter the program and Medicare enrollment expands dramatically. The Republican Medicare cut proposal does nothing to confront the real Medicare solvency problem. In the short run, we can and should stabilize the Medicare trust fund and assure that we can keep our promises to the American people, but this is nothing new. The stability of the Medicare trust fund has always required attention. In the mid-1970's, the Medicare trust fund was due to expire in 2 years. The same problem recurred in the early 1980's. A 7-year window for the trust fund is about average. We have always moved quickly and responsibly to keep the trust fund solvent. Under a Republican majority, this will be very difficult, but Democrats are committed to preserving Medicare without breaking our commitment to senior citizens and their families. In trying to understand these Medicare cuts ask yourself, Why are the Republicans making such drastic and painful cuts? Can't you save Medicare without hurting older Americans? The answer is yes. But the Republicans need to cut $270 billion out of Medicare so that they can pay for their tax cuts to the well-off and balance the budget by an arbitrary date they picked from a campaign booklet. They need $270 billion from Medicare to pay for a $245 billion tax cut. They are simply using Medicare as the bank to pay for tax cuts and deficit reduction. The Medicare trust fund problem is not making these cuts happen. You do not need to take $270 billion out of Medicare--as Republicans propose to do--to save the trust fund. It is hard to fully understand the magnitude of the cuts proposed by the Republican majority in this Congress. Republicans have proposed cutting substantially more funds from Medicare in the next 7 years than the program spends for its entire costs in 1 year. Republicans want to limit the rate of growth for the program that provides health insurance to the oldest and the sickest in our population to a rate of growth per person that is almost one-half of the rate of growth per person for the private insurance industry. The private health insurance industry provides insurance primarily to people that are younger and healthier than the Medicare population. Yet, private premiums and payments still will be almost double the funding provided for the health insurance for the Nation's elderly under the Republican proposal. I put this chart up here because the blue is for the expected Medicare voucher, and this is the cost, the green is what it costs in the private sector. Each year you can see that the private sector is going up much faster than the voucher is, and that is what is written into their proposal. Senior citizens' out-of-pocket expenses are estimated to increase by at least $3,500 per person under the Republican proposal. Each Medicare beneficiary will have less health care and fewer benefits as the number of Medicare beneficiaries grow, while the dollars shrink, all to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and a budget tied to Wall Street instead of Main Street. Now, as people are thinking about this, they really have to think, how will these cuts be achieved? The strongest possibility promoted by the Republicans is to issue vouchers to senior citizens to buy insurance. But the kicker is that the value of the voucher won't be enough to pay for an adequate insurance policy. Senior citizens will have to pay for the difference between the value of the voucher and the cost of the insurance policy. By the year 2002, the cost of private insurance is expected to be 18 percent more than the Medicare voucher is worth. That is really what this chart is all about. They start out easy on people. They give them the amount of money that an actual insurance policy would cost in 1995. The next year they give them a little less than it would cost, and by the year 2002, you can see that the voucher will be worth $6,500, and they estimate that the cost of an adequate policy to cover what is necessary will be $7,600. Now, that is $1,200 that the senior citizen will have to come up with out of their own pocket because Medicare itself will not cover the cost. The result will be that seniors will be forced into the most restrictive HMO's. Contrary, and I say again, contrary to the Republican rhetoric, the vouchers will not be used to give seniors more choice. They will not have more choice because they will not have the money to buy an adequate policy. They will have to buy the cheapest policy possible and if it is adequate or inadequate, that does not make any difference to the Republicans. All they want to do is save the money and force a tax increase on senior citizens of $1,200 a year. Underfunded vouchers will lead to a loss of choice. They will be used to take away the free choice of provider, the ability to decide which physician you want to see, which hospital you want to be in. You are going to be in an HMO, a managed care operation that will tell you, ``This is the doctor you can see. This is the hospital you must go to.'' In the present Medicare program, senior citizens have the maximum choice. They can go to any doctor, any hospital they want. Under the Republican plan, if seniors cannot afford the difference, if they cannot come up with [[Page H 6901]] the difference between what the voucher gives them and what the actual cost is, they will have to go without health care or they will buy an inadequate policy. Remember, when the Republicans are ratcheting down the value of the Medicare voucher, they are doing nothing to control costs. They are simply holding down the cost of the voucher each year, but they are not doing anything anywhere in this Congress to control the overall costs. So the costs will continue to go up at a much faster rate. The gap between the voucher and the health insurance price will be even bigger over time. Just for a second, think about who Medicare beneficiaries really are. They are senior citizens, over 65, and they are the disabled in this country who need medical care. You do not get on Medicare as a disabled person unless you have a chronic illness and need the care; you have had kidney disease and have had the need for dialysis, you need care, so if you are 45 years old and you are on a Medicare program for dialysis, you are there because that is how we are paying for it in this country. An increasing number of people in this country are over 85 years old, and the overwhelming majority of people on Medicare have an income of under $25,000 a year. You are thinking about somebody making $25,000 a year having to come up with an additional $1,200 to buy an adequate policy. It is these people that the Republicans want to throw into the water to swim alone with an underfunded voucher through the private insurance market. Young healthy workers, for heaven's sakes, have great difficulty assessing their health insurance options even with the help of employers and with personnel counselors in their businesses. Senior citizens will have none of these advantages as they try to select the policy that will give them the greatest protection, provided they can pay for it and can overcome the subtle strategies of the health insurance industry to direct the less healthy customers away from their companies. Imagine if your father is, let's say, going to be 90 years old. He has had a heart attack, he has had a stroke, he has some skin cancer, he has a few problems, and he goes out with his little voucher in his hand looking for an insurance company that is going to want to take him. How many insurance companies are going to run out and meet him in the street and say, ``Come on in, sir, we want to sell you insurance''? They do not want these senior citizens who have illnesses. They want young, healthy people, so they are going to try and pick off the healthy seniors and let the sick ones, the ones who have got chronic illnesses--as you get old, that is kind of what happens to you--those people are going to be excluded from the system. If the Republicans have their way with these cuts in Medicare, they will be moving from a system of guaranteed health insurance for the elderly and disabled to a health insurance lottery for those who can afford it. Whether this policy will be adequate for you or not is going to be sort of luck. Guaranteed health coverage for senior citizens will become a distant memory. It is bad enough on senior citizens, but it is even worse when you think about it because imagine the families, the children and the grandchildren of these senior citizens. When they find out that Mother or Father or Grandma and Grandpa have not got adequate care, what are they going to do? They are going to say, ``Well, sorry, Ma, too bad''? Of course not. They are going to have to reach into their pocket and pay the difference for Mom and Dad. That is what is going to happen. For 30 years in this country there are people my age, 58 years old, and younger, who have never one time had to think about the health care of their parents. With the Republican proposal, they are going to be forced, we are going to be forced, me and everyone else younger than me is going to be forced to think about how they pay the difference for their mother and father or their grandparents in this system. The Republicans really want to put that obligation back on the plates of young families. For 30 years, families have not had to choose between Grandma's medical bills and whether they could send a child to community college. But if this Republican budget and cuts in Medicare passes, American families will be forced to face that decision. It is not just senior citizens and their families that will be affected The entire health care system rests on Medicare. it is the major source of funding in many respects in our system. Major community providers, the hospitals, doctors, nurses and so forth will be severely compromised. In my district in Seattle, these hospitals get as much as 60 percent of their revenue from Medicare and Medicaid. With cuts of the kind of magnitude suggested here, they simply will not be able to maintain the same level of services to any patient, not just to Medicare patients, but because they lose the Medicare revenue, they are going to have to drop the level of care that they can offer across the board. Academic medical centers. We are very proud in this country, we have the best medical research and the best medical education in the world. We brag about it. But the fact is that the funding for medical schools is from the Medicare program. Medicare assumes a disproportioned burden of the cost of training new physicians and the burden of the higher costs of academic health centers. With cuts of this magnitude, academic health centers will not be able to continue training the same number of highly competent physicians. The ability of academic health centers to provide our most sophisticated treatment and care will be greatly diminished. Many hospitals will not survive. I have a letter from the head of the Harbor View Hospital in Seattle, and he closes by saying this: Harbor View is the only Level One trauma center in the State of Washington serving a 4-State area. The magnitude of these cuts is so huge that it presents a doomsday scenario for Harbor View. They expect to lose $125 million a year out of this proposal. So it is not just senior citizens. It is not just their families. It is not just the medical schools. It is the very highly trained and very highly sophisticated trauma centers in this country. Many hospitals, particularly rural hospitals, will not survive this kind of budget. Everyone's access to health care will be reduced, particularly in the rural areas. As hospitals try and make up the revenues lost through Medicare and Medicaid cuts, the private insurance rates are going to skyrocket if you do not have them adequately funded for the senior citizens who are there. The bill will be passed to a senior citizen who does not have the money. They are only making $25,000. If they have not got the money, it becomes a bad debt for the hospital. The only way the hospital can get that bad debt taken care of is to put it over onto the people who are buying private insurance. That is called cost-shifting. You shift from people who cannot pay to the people who are paying. If you reduce Medicare, private insurance rates in this country will go up. Medicare cuts for tax cuts and balanced budget politics will rob the middle class of much of the economic security as well as the health care security. We need to protect the entire American family, old, young, middle-aged, and the quality and stability of American health care, by opposing the Medicare cuts that the Republicans are offering. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], for some comments that she has.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the treatment of renewable energy and energy conservation programs in the fiscal year 1996 Appropriation bills. These bills threaten America's commitment to proven energy sources and their substantial economic and environmental benefits. In the rush to cut the Federal budget, Congress should not recklessly endanger America's future environmental health and economic competitiveness. Renewable energy and energy conservation programs will improve America's future by offering clean energy sources at an affordable cost. Instead of cutting these programs, we should be expanding our commitment and support. Gains in renewable energy are made almost daily. Energy generated by the wind is now being competitively marketed in the State of Washington at 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour. In addition to existing solar energy stations, plans for a high volume solar energy plant in Nevada will competitively market solar energy in rural areas at a price of 5.5 cents per kwh. Besides being cheap, there are no hidden costs--such as environmental degradation through air pollution or threats to human health. Republican efforts to cut renewable energy research and development and conservation programs by almost 50 percent below fiscal year 1995 levels sets back the Nation's attempt to kick its harmful addiction to fossil fuels. While prices for fossil fuels fluctuate on a whim, fuel costs for renewable energy are zero. If strides are not made in finding alternative energy sources today, it is estimated that by the year 2010, foreign oil will make up 65 percent of U.S. oil consumption. Without an alternative energy plan, the Nation's addictive reliance on oil--both U.S. and foreign--will continue to harm the global environment and increase the Nation's trade deficit by billions of dollars. In addition to finding new sources of energy, it is important to remember that much can be saved conserving what we already have. The Interior Appropriations bill, to be debated later this week, makes substantial cuts in energy conservation. For example, by the year 2000, a $150 million investment in energy conservation programs will save my own State of [[Page H 6783]] Washington almost $700 million, reduce CO2 emissions by 1.74 millions of metric tons per carbon equivalent [MMTCE]--and create more than 10,000 jobs across the State. If the conservation programs escape radical cuts from the budget knife, the country stands to save over $21 billion in energy costs in the year 2000 and would reduce its carbon emissions by 4.3 percent. Clearly, relatively small investments today could provide huge savings in the future. Unfortunately, the Republicans don't want to hear these facts, and, instead, prefer to cut state weatherization programs by 50 percent. Programs that not only will save energy, they keep low income individuals warm in the winter, help institutions such as hospitals become more energy efficient, and spur the local economy. We are so close to providing reliable alternative sources of energy-- through renewables and energy conservation--which will have lasting benefits to us all. Why stop now? Congress should be working to improve America's future by building on today's successes. Let's not squander this opportunity by turning our backs on sources of energy that are vital to improving America's economy and its environment. The Republican budgetary treatment of renewable energy and energy conservation is short-sighted and foolish. I cannot support bills so absurd in thinking that they ignore the obvious benefits of establishing clean and efficient alternative sources of energy. I urge you to vote against this legislation. Thank you.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of the triumph of ideology over American pragmatism. The Republicans say they are going to save the fund. First they take $86 billion out by a tax break. Then they take another $280 billion out by the cuts they are going to make. Then their solution is to pick a solution that does not work. There was a study done by the Research Triangle Institute which says it spends 17\1/2\ percent more for select than it does in the system we have today, which means they are going to spend it down quicker. The real result of their efforts is to get rid of Medicare. They want to break the system 17 percent faster by putting people into select. That is not a solution. It simply makes the problem worse. Everyone should understand it and vote ``no.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, although this version of the rescissions bill was just introduced last night, it shouldn't take anyone too long to figure out that, as written, it still would seriously harm America's national forests. For this reason alone, I cannot support this poorly written piece of legislation. Rather than work toward a balanced and environmentally sustainable means to salvage timber, the Republicans have tacked on odious environmental language which will encroach on the health of the environment. Why are the Republicans clouding the rescissions bill with a costly environmental disaster such as this timber salvage plan? To some, the words ``timber salvage'' may be rhetorically pleasing-- evoking images of saving rotting trees from their imminent demise--yet this timber salvage plan is a thinly disguised excuse for unregulated timber harvest in our treasured national forests. H.R. 1944's timber salvage plan would mandate more than 6 billion board feet be cut from our national forests over the next 2 years. Worse still, a majority of this astounding sum will come from our northwest national forests most pristine roadless areas and old-growth remnants. [[Page H 6642]] While proponents of this bill claim that loggers only will cut down trees that are diseased, the actual rescissions language states that loggers may go in and cut whatever they see fit as long as there are any trees in the forest that are damaged. Definition of timber salvage in subsection (a)(3). I am appalled that in order to let the timber industry into the Nation's forests, the Republicans will literally suspend all environmental, health, and safety laws. As written, this bill will even overturn any judicial order, fought for by some of our own constituents, aimed at preventing such poorly planned taxpayer- subsidized logging as this bill will mandate. Clearly, emergency appropriations legislation is not an effective way to manage forests, nor is it good public policy. Mr. Speaker, allowing passage of this so called timber salvage plan will threaten the health of our national forests. Unfortunately, the Republicans have got the votes to do whatever they please and they want to pass this bill. I am dismayed that they repeatedly use their new- found power to continue an irresponsible assault on our Nation's environment.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because, among other reasons, the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton], preserving OTA, was not put in order. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment to retain OTA. I have served on the OTA board for 4 years, and I feel strongly that this agency should be retained. I have three main points I want to make concerning OTA in my brief comments today. My first point is that the work of OTA is not simply a luxury to Congress, the work done by OTA cannot and will not be replicated by any other organization. Second, I want to point out that OTA exists as a result of growing awareness over the early part of the 20th century of the ever- increasing need for sound scientific analysis in policymaking. Much careful thought went into creating OTA, and we should be equally careful as we consider what its future should be. Congress will not get a lot of symbolic mileage out of eliminating OTA. With all the inefficient organizations we have to cut in the Federal Government, eliminating a small agency that is considered a model of efficiency by experts across the political spectrum is not the way to score political points. During the joint hearing on congressional support agencies on February 2 of this year, a number of experts on congressional reform from across the political spectrum discussed OTA. Each witness praised the expertise of OTA reports, and several witnesses noted that OTA could serve as a model of efficiency and organization for other government entities. No one questioned the objectivity of OTA, nor were there serious concerns raised about the utility of their reports. The only argument made for eliminating OTA was that the organization was not essential to the Congress. The question then comes down to the necessity of having OTA continue its work for Congress. I think we all can agree that Congress is being called upon to legislate in a world which only becomes more technically complex, we clearly have a need for good technical analysis from an objective and professional organization. Some say we should go directly to the outside experts, and that objective and balanced advice should be obtained that way. This is based on the belief that professional standards in the technical fields are sufficient that Congress does not need an office to help sort out competing scientifically based claims. As a medical professional, I know enough about science to know that there is a lot of ground for differing interpretation and presentation of scientific facts. In my own field, I can make judgments about what constitutes solid evidence. But we are incapable of making those sorts of judgments outside of our own fields. I would have very little basis to judge good or bad scientific advice outside of my own area of medicine. In OTA, we keep on hand a small but highly trained group of experts in numerous technology related fields. They have no institutional or economic agenda to push. They exist to sort out competing arguments, to explain seemingly contradictory facts, and then present them to us so that we may make our policy decisions with these complicated scientific perspectives sorted out. Here is an example of why it would be difficult to rely directly on experts or the private sector to fill the functions of OTA. Many of us have been concerned over the past several years about the emergence of bacterial disease resistant to many of our antibiotics. What is unknown is how serious a problem this truly is, and how we should deal with it. Presumably we could go directly to the experts, the microbiologists and infectious disease specialists. But we might expect these professionals could have a conflict of interest, and might overstate the problem, in hopes of obtaining more funding for surveillance and basic research. OTA has no stake in this issue other than to serve the policymaking needs of the Congress. They can afford to be objective and ask the question, Is this truly a public health crisis, and what needs to be done about it? The OTA is just a few months away from having a report completed on this question, and it will almost certainly shed important light on a problem which is a significant cause for public concern. We must recognize that OTA exists as a result of a long history of recognition by Federal policymakers that policy requires data and analysis. The National Academy of Sciences argued for the creation of OTA, because they--among others--recognized that the pace of science demanded an expanded capacity for Congress to obtain balanced technical advice. The number of scientific and technology issues, the pace of change and the complexity of these issues will only increase in the next decade. It strikes me as precisely the wrong time for impulsive acts like the elimination of an entity that exists because of a long, carefully considered need for such assistance. OTA was not some luxury created based on some monetary whim. OTA exists because policymakers found a significant gap that was not filled by the existing experts, think tanks, academic centers, or other sources. The National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Engineering continues to this day to strongly support the continuation of OTA. Furthermore, we should not expect that an entity like OTA can be quickly recreated. OTA has accumulated an experienced staff in an amazingly broad range of science and technology issues, and that have a considerable amount of institutional memory in addition to their technical expertise. A hasty decision to fire these professionals would undo many years of careful thought and painstaking hiring. The American people sent a lot of new people to Congress in November to act; but they did not send them here to act impulsively or with short-sightedness. I think that if we have learned anything it is that the public can usually tell the difference.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Dellums for this opportunity to speak against this amendment which I strongly oppose. Current law, which this amendment proposes to change, allows the Federal Government to transfer portions of former military bases to local communities, at no cost, who wish to provide housing and job training for the homeless. Many local communities across the country, including my hometown of Seattle, WA, have successfully integrated homeless assistance plans into base reuse proposals in ways that will benefit the entire community. The Sand Point Community Liaison Committee has worked extensively with the city of Seattle, the Seattle-King County Coalition for the homeless and many other groups to successfully address the problem of homelessness. It seems odd that the Republican authors of this amendment would want to take away base closure property from local communities who have demonstrated willingness to use the property to assist the homeless. Republicans are always declaring that they want to increase local flexibility but the Molinari-Bilbray amendment will only decrease the flexibility of local communities wishing to solve local problems. If this amendment passes, an important option will be eliminated and local communities will be left with the problem of homelessness and in turn will need to rely on Federal and State appropriated money to address the problem. By prohibiting local communities from finding innovative techniques, such as using closed military facilities, to address the serious problem of homelessness, this amendment will further increase the costs to local governments. Another unfunded mandate from the Republicans. But the Republicans will continue to say, ``no, this is not an unfunded mandate. We are not mandating that you assist the homeless in any way in your local community.'' Of course you're not, but these communities are the ones that are dealing with the homeless in their backyards and in their alleys and streets. Let's not inhibit local communities from doing their job. We should not cut the options for communities who want to deal with their homeless population to do so in a safe, agreeable, and fiscally responsible fashion. I urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible amendment.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I come to this floor to support this motion because I cannot imagine a proposal more devastating to the health care system of this country than the $340 billion tax cut to the well-off which is proposed in the Republican budget. The greatest travesty of this tax cut is that it is being paid for overwhelmingly by cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, cuts that total almost $500 billion. The Republicans cut $280 billion from Medicaid alone. Every senior citizen will experience an average increase of $1,000 per year in health care costs as a result of the Republican Medicare cuts. Cost of living increases in Social Security will be applied directly to increased health care costs. The effect on senior citizens will be a 50 percent decrease in Social Security COLA's to pay for the tax cut that will give 1 million Americans an average tax break of $20,000 a year. Now, Mr. Speaker, Medicare and Medicaid are not bloated Government programs. They are health insurance for approximately 70 million Americans, and they have been pared down and pared down, and the benefits have been pared down each year. Medicare spends less than 3 percent of its budget on administration, compared to 30 percent by the private insurance industry. The Medicare cuts in the Republican budget go to the bone, the muscle, and the artery of the senior citizens' health care system, but they do not effect only senior citizens. As older parents and grandparents are unable to pay these increased costs, the effect of those cuts will spill over onto young families, young families who have had stagnant incomes for the last 10 years as they face the need to educate their own children. It is the young families who will be hit hard by these unnecessary, and I say unnecessary, cuts: $288 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for $344 billion of tax breaks for the rich. It is an even exchange. Take it from senior citizens and give it to the rich. Now, young families will have to come up with the money to maintain their parents' medical care. If they do not, their parents will lose the insurance coverage they have now under Medicare and they will lose access to the hospitals and physicians that they have always used. The reality is that the Republican tax cuts will force families to take on the medical expenses of their elderly parents, something that has not happened in this country in 30 years. The Medicaid cuts, on the other hand, to pay for the rest of the tax cuts, will make this problem even worse. There is a myth in this country: Medicaid is not primarily a program for the poorest of the poor women and children. Two-thirds of the money from Medicaid goes to pay for senior citizens' nursing home care. Those Medicare fund cuts will mean that families will no longer have the long-term safety net that they have come to expect, and they will have to either cough up the money or leave their jobs to take care of people in their family who need senior citizen care. Now, if this was not bad enough, I just left the Committee on Ways and Means, where the Republicans are preparing to get rid of the progressive income tax and shift the costs all down onto the middle class and the lower class. This is a two-pronged approach to shift all the costs onto the middle class. I urge you to support this motion, because it is a protection not only for senior citizens, but for the middle class, the baby boomers in this country, who are going to get hit with a back door punch they do not see coming. I urge the support of this motion. Nursing homes cost $40,000 per year. Before these cuts, American families could be secure that if grandma's savings were used up in paying for nursing home care, the Medicaid Program would be there to assure that her care could continue without also bankrupting her children. With these cuts, that guarantee is gone. The financial impact is not the only cost American families will feel. Medicare and Medicaid are the main structural beams supporting the rural health delivery system, our Nation's teaching hospitals, urban hospitals, and children's hospitals. With these cuts, many rural hospitals and children's hospitals will simply close. Teaching hospitals will not be able to continue to train at the same level the next generation of doctors or continue to provide our most sophisticated care. Most hospitals will have to reduce services to everyone and limit nursing care to absorb the dramatic impact of these cuts. Most hospitals will have to reduce the amount of uncompensated care they give to people without health insurance--a number that is growing every day. And for what? To improve Medicare? To make our families more secure? To get health insurance to more people? To improve the quality of care? The answer to all those questions is No, No, No and No. These cuts will not make Medicare more secure or save it for the next generation or make health care better. They will do only one thing. They will pay for tax cuts to the rich while everyone else will pay through the nose for health care for their loved ones. These tax cuts paid for with Medicare and Medicaid cuts are a devastating attack on the economic and health security of American middle class families. I urge that they be reconsidered under the reasoned light of public responsibility, not the glare of tax cut politics. I urge the adoption of this motion.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the unsatisfactory outcome of almost 2 years of bilateral negotiations on access to the Japanese automotive market is disappointing. However, unilateral imposition of 6 billion dollars' worth of sanctions on Japanese products by the United States is a dangerous and unworkable solution. Under the rules and procedures of the WTO, if any member country feels that it has been wronged, it has an obligation to go to the WTO first before applying sanctions and certainly not in concert with the application of sanctions. If the administration continues to insist that imposition of punitive sanctions against Japanese luxury cars is the best way to force Japan to open its markets, the United States should set an example for the rest of our trading partners and file a WTO complaint against Japan. Let's take advantage of the WTO's dispute settlement procedure, which we helped negotiate. Unilateral imposition of sanctions by the United States against the Japanese sends the message to the rest of the world that we have no confidence in the WTO's ability to decide the case fairly. Let's not restrict free trade in the United States in an effort to open up markets abroad. Punitive sanctions that have the potential to cost thousands of United States jobs in a very short period of time and do nothing to achieve our goal of opening up the Japanese automotive market are not the answer.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about budgets and numbers and about graphs and charts. It is about human beings like Mrs. Dolly Johnston. She is a 67-year-old woman from Spokane, WA, who had a heart operation in 1993. For 4 months afterwards she had home health care from a nurse. Mrs. Johnston, who was a nurse for 32 years, said if I had not had here, I was too weak to pour my own medicine. Now, this budget that is being laid out here today is making major cuts in this program that took care of Mrs. Johnston, the Medicare Program. How are they going to do it? Let me just think about this woman for a second. The plan that makes these cuts will require each senior citizen like Mrs. Johnston to get a voucher. think for a minute. She is 67 years old. You give her an inadequate voucher that will have to be ratcheted down every year in order to make the savings that are proposed over here. She will go out into the street with that voucher in her hand. She has a preexisting condition. She is 67 years old. You tell me where the loving insurance company is in your district that is going to give her an adequate insurance policy? Now, I have dealt with these people, and no insurance company is going to do that for her. So, who will pick up the difference between that inadequate policy and what she really needs? Her children. For the first time in 30 years, the young people of this country are going to have to worry about their grandmother or their mother and how they are going to pay for that. When I was young and my grandmother, back in the 1950's, had no insurance, we paid it around the table. It was figured out among the uncles and brothers. That is going to start happening in this country for the first time in 30 years. And it is not just insurance companies. Remember Mrs. Johnston when you vote ``no.''

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, this is a wonderful mythological event today. The Republicans are trying to sell the idea to the American people that you can make massive cuts in programs and give big tax breaks to the wealthy in this country and nobody will feel it. This budget takes health care away from 7 million children in the Medicaid Program. I do not know all about agriculture and defense and all the other things, but I do know about this budget with respect to health. The idea that the Medicare is not a cut, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] today, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] yesterday stood up over and over again and said it is not a cut. The Republican plan mandates growth of 5.4 percent and says that is all right because private insurance is only increasing at 4 percent. The 4 percent growth rate from the private sector health insurance premiums claimed by Republicans is a made-up number. There is no study, no one can bring a study on the floor that shows that, because it does not exist. It is made up, and everyone agrees that the private health insurance rates, at least CBO and Medicare actuaries say it is going to grow at 7.6 percent. That means that for the Republican Medicare voucher plan put forward by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the Committee on the Budget, if that is adopted, senior citizens will be paying one-quarter of their benefits which Medicare now provides in its entirety, and the erosion will continue and continue. If Members believe that the American people believe that they can have a free lunch and they can all be for free, and it will not hurt anybody, keep pushing this budget, because there will be another vote here, it will not be only on this floor, it will be in November 1996. You will find out the result then.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than a sham and a public relations gesture to mask the fact that Republicans are proposing $283 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for tax cuts to the well-off. If Republicans care so much about Medicare, why did they not wait for policy recommendations before proposing Medicare cuts? This is a classic case of slash first and ask questions later. The fact that cuts are proposed before getting advice is the smoking gun that proves that the Republican's real intent is to cut Medicare regardless of any objective recommendation. We know why they have to cut Medicare. Medicare is the only place where Republicans can find enough money to pay for their Contract on America. If Republicans care so much about Medicare, why did they take $87 billion in earmarked funds out of the Medicare trust fund to pay for tax cuts to wealthy seniors? What makes this bill so obviously a sham is that the Medicare trustees who are being required by this bill to provide policy advice on the Medicare trust fund have absolutely no authority or basis for making policy recommendations. They are not Medicare experts or health policy experts. They are accounting fiduciaries. But the Republicans did not go to the policy arms of Congress for recommendations. They went to the entity least able to provide recommendations and not designed to engage in policy functions. They were afraid that the policy experts would tell them that they cannot slash Medicare without terrible consequences for Medicare beneficiaries, their families, and the health care delivery system. They were afraid the policy experts would tell them that they have to expand coverage for everyone if Medicare is to be really safe. They were afraid the people who know what they are talking about would tell them that Medicare savings need to be kept in the health care delivery system to improve coverage for seniors and their families. Mr. Speaker, Republicans just discovered the trust fund problem while Democrats have worked successfully for decades to incrementally improve and extend the trust fund viability each year, often against the backdrop of Republican opposition. The Nation that we suddenly need a 30-year solution by June 30 from an entity totally unsuited to the assignment does not even pass the straight face test. We will address the trust fund problem as we always have. But we will address it outside the context of tax cuts and budget politics. We will address Medicare and the trust fund in the context of health policy, not arbitrary budget targets. We will address the trust fund in the context of health reform that keeps our entire health care system stable, not according to campaign manifestos that Republicans never dreamed they would actually have to use to govern. But we will never be able to give the American people confidence in the government, if Republicans continue to substitute ridiculous gimmicks like this bill for substantive approaches to health security for senior citizens and every American.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to warn my colleagues to beware of Republican doublespeak on Medicare cuts. The greatest doublespeak is that Republicans will reform Medicare to give seniors more choices by giving them vouchers to buy private insurance. What they do not say is that the vouchers will not be worth enough to enable them to buy an insurance policy that gives them the choices they have today. They do not say that the value of the vouchers will force seniors into the lowest cost and most restrictive HMO's. They do not say that the value of the voucher is going to be ratcheted down every year to become worth less and less until seniors are saddled with virtually all the costs of their health care. They do not say that the vouchers will toss seniors to swim alone in the perilous and confusing currents of the private insurance market-- the same market that has reduced their children's choices. Vouchers are not more choice. They spell the end of Medicare coverage that seniors--and their families--rely on.