Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we have invited the Committee on Ways and Means staff to meetings. Let me say, the Parliamentarian did not refer this to the Committee on Ways and Means as the committee of jurisdiction. So we worked with the Subcommittee on Civil Service within the Committee on Government Operations, and we worked with the Committee on National Security, because they were referred to us as the committee of jurisdiction. We are only talking about one line in this bill among many lines, and I think we can work that out in conference.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Let me just tell the gentleman, we have been working on this for four years. I can verify to you that I introduced this five years ago. Now, we have 284 cosponsors. We want to work with the gentleman. We did everything we could to work it out in conference.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am very much impressed, and I appreciate the gentleman bringing up these issues. What I wanted to say to the gentleman, though, we have talked with the insurance companies. The fact is that with a separate risk pool, given the fact that these people are eligible for Medicare, Medicare is a payer of first resort, the insurance premiums are not going to be exorbitant as the gentleman has suggested, they are going to be quite affordable.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I was waiting for the gentleman to catch his breath.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. It sounds like a good solution.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we look forward it addressing this concern in conference.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, again, I yield myself such time as I may consume and tell the gentleman from California that CBO has looked at this, has determined that it would cost a maximum of $50 million. That assumes that military retirees will avail themselves of this opportunity and, in fact, will use Medicare to a somewhat greater extent than they do now. Mr. Chairman, even though every enlisted service member was promised free quality lifetime health care as partial compensation for their service to their country, Medicare eligible military retirees are not provided adequate access to health care. Free quality lifetime health care is no longer available to people once they become 65 years of age. They are precluded from participating in TriCare, they are prohibited from using Champus, and they are placed last on the priority list at military medical treatment facilities. That is why we have this amendment. Federal civilian retirees and former Members of Congress in comparison have excellent health care. Civilian retirees are able to participate in the same health insurance program they enjoyed when they were active employees. The Federal Government does not kick them out of their insurance program once they become eligible for Medicare. In fact, many of the plans provided for civilian employees provide greater coverage and more benefits to those who are Medicare eligible, because that is when they need health care the most, when they retire at 65. We should correct this inequity in treatment between Federal retirees and military retirees by providing Medicare eligible military retirees the same options and the same insurance program as we provide Medicare eligible Federal retirees. That is what this amendment does. It begins this process. It establishes a limited demonstration program that will allow 70,000 Medicare eligible military retirees the option to join the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program for 3 years. During that time, they have the same rights and benefits as their Federal civilian counterparts. The amendment establishes separate risk pools to ensure that military retirees and Federal civilian beneficiaries do not cross-subsidize one another. Then it requires that DoD, the Office of Personnel Management, and GAO fully analyze the impact of this FEHBP option after the demonstration has ended. So we can then decide whether or not we want full national implementation based on complete factual information. This is a bipartisan amendment. It is strongly supported by the Military Coalition, the National Military Veterans Alliance, the Retired Officers Association. Every major military association endorses this amendment. I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is concerned about it. I am disappointed the gentleman is opposed to it. It is going to have some minor impact on Medicare, $50 million, but that means in addition to the $700 billion Medicare program that Medicare will spend over that 3 year period, $50 million might be spent by military retirees who are eligible for Medicare? We could save 10 times this amount annually if we change HCFA's billing system, for example. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and I will enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) promising to work with him to address the concerns of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). It is unfortunate the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) cannot join us to work out these problems. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and support military retirees health care when they need it the most.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will tell the gentleman from California that the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who has also worked on this bill for some time and, as you know, serves with you on the Committee on Ways and Means, is going to address those issues.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. On his time, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Sure.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Shortly.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. At the outset of this debate, I first wanted to express my gratitude to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), chairman, and to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking minority member, for their leadership on this issue and to Donna Hoffmeier, Mieke Eoyang of the Committee on National Security staff, and especially to Mike Brown of my staff for all the work that they have done to enable us to bring this amendment to the floor today. This amendment establishes a demonstration project through which Medicare eligible military retirees will be able to join the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. We have taken the basic text of H.R. 1766, which is cosponsored by 284 Members of this body, and we have added one refinement after another until we have ensured that every concern has been addressed. As of this morning, every concern had been addressed that we have been told about.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen. An additional point needs to be made, that while the administration opposes this bill in general, their principle objection seems to be to this particular provision. Those who want the overall bill to pass, I think it makes enactment problematic when this particular provision is included. So I think that needs to be seriously considered within the context of whether we should pass this particular amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly sorry that my colleague is challenged and chagrined on this. But as an original sponsor of the unfunded Mandates Reform Act and as a strong supporter of the Mandates Information Act, I support the Moakley amendment. A vote for the Moakley amendment is a vote to strike language that would erode the intent of the Mandates Information Act. So, in other words, the Moakley amendment is an attempt to maintain the integrity of the Mandates Information Act. It was not a part of the original Mandates Information Act, the language that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) is attempting to strike. It is not supported by the business community or the bill's original sponsors. It was added at the last minute by the House leadership, apparently to serve a political objective. I am opposed to this because it waives the right for anyone to challenge a private or a public sector mandate if the bill results in a net tax decrease. So, in other words, it allows a bill to amass major tax increases as long as they can find some other, albeit unrelated, tax decrease to offset the major tax increases. That means, despite a number of tax increases and provisions that close tax loopholes in the 1997 Tax Relief Act, no one would have been able to raise a point of order on the revenue measures because the bill contained a net tax deduction. This year's highway bill, however, would have been subject to a point of order since there was no net tax decrease but there was an extension of the current Federal gasoline excise tax. Do we really want to create two categories of tax bills, one that is exempt and another that is subject to the provisions that we fought hard to include in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and the Mandates Information Act? I think not. I would be surprised if my friend and colleague would not agree that we should not have two separate categories of tax increases. So I urge my colleagues to support the Moakley amendment and restore the integrity and the intent of the Mandate Information Act. Let us be evenhanded when we deal with tax measures.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Well, it just seems to me that we ought to spotlight it when there is any tax increase. And that is what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) is attempting to do, and that is why I support the Moakley amendment. I thank the gentleman for his input, though.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, last week the Speaker of the House publicly characterized Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as ``an agent for the Palestinians.'' I realize that there are those in this Chamber who do not feel that the United States should live up to its treaty obligations by acting as an unbiased mediator in the Middle East peace process. But to characterize the Secretary of State in this manner was unfair and irrational. I understand that it would be best explained as political posturing in an election year, but while we may have grown accustomed to reckless rhetoric when it comes to domestic politics, it is inexcusable to exploit the peace process for domestic political gain. No lasting peace in the Middle East can be secured by riding political winds in the United States. The people that must determine the acceptability of any peace settlement are those living in the region. It is critical that the administration remain focused on what might be acceptable over the long term to Israelis--to Palestinians and in fact, to all who long for a secure, lasting and just peace throughout the middle east. I urge the Speaker to retract and apologize for his remarks and to honor America's commitment to the peace process.