Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I support the health care reform legislation that is known as the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill because it would make it easier for workers who lose or change jobs to buy health insurance coverage, and it would limit the length of time that insurers could refuse to cover a preexisting medical problem. Essentially what this legislation does in its original form is to simply make it easier for people to get health insurance because we know that fewer and fewer people, fewer and fewer Americans today have health insurance as compared to, say, 5 or 10 years ago. But I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation was originally crafted to keep premiums affordable because it would not impact the insurance risk pool by encouraging healthy individuals to drop coverage. It had bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives in its original form, and the President indicated that he would support it or sign the bill in his State of the Union Address. However, from the very beginning the Republican leadership in the House insisted on messing up this very simple legislation with controversial poison pill amendments. I mention this today because this morning during special orders the Speaker, Speaker Gingrich, got up and talked about how good this legislation was. But He refused or he did not mention, I should say, one of the provisions that he and others in the Republican leadership insist on including. That is the poison pill of the medical savings accounts, or MSAs, which will favor the healthy and the wealthy and will be just another tax shelter for the rich. I say this because Americans who do not choose to join the MSAs because of the high risks involved will see their health insurance premiums actually increase, and the MSAs among other extraneous provisions that have been placed in the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill here in the House will guarantee the failure of any health insurance reform in the Congress. I just wanted to read, if I could, a section from the Washington Post editorial on April 9, 1996, where they explained in some detail why MSAs would essentially drive up insurance costs and ultimately cause fewer people to have insurance, just the opposite of what the Kennedy- Kassebaum bill is intended to do. It says in this editorial that the goal of the underlying bill is to strengthen the health insurance system by making it easier for people who can afford it to remain insured between jobs. Mainly it would help the part of the population that already has insurance rather than one-seventh that largely for reasons of cost does not. But the likely effect of medical savings accounts would be to push in the opposite direction, weaken the insurance system and in the end add to the number of uninsured. If the medical savings proposal becomes law, those who chose would buy so-called catastrophic insurance policies that kick in only after the first $3,000 or so of annual expenses. The savings accounts would also likely split the insurance market. They represent a gamble. People who would most likely take the gamble would be the healthier and better off. To some degree, they would be choosing to withdraw from the broader insurance pool to fend for themselves. Left in the pool would be the more vulnerable, who would likely see their insurance costs go up; the increase would make insurance even harder to maintain than now. In a sense this is the very opposite of the insurance principle. It is being pushed by companies that want to sell catastrophic coverage, plus people drawn to the individual responsibility that the idea entails, but for the population as a whole, it would do more harm than good. The President has rightly suggested that he would be disposed to veto a bill that included these accounts. Well, the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that the Republican health plan with these MSAs would raise premiums for average Americans and make insurance less affordable. Hence fewer people would be able to get insurance under this bill. It is nothing more than a payback to the Golden Rule Insurance Co. Golden Rule has made big contributions to the Republicans and will reap big profits if the MSA proposal becomes law. Of the $1.2 million contribution that has been given to the Republicans by the Golden Rule president, J. Patrick Rooney and his family, even more has been given to other GOP candidates and causes. What causes. What I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is essentially that Speaker Gingrich got on the floor this morning and talked about what he is trying to do for health care reform. He neglects to mention that essentially he is trying to sabotage health insurance reform with the MSA provisions. This GOP provision provides no help for working families and just provides handouts for special interests. Essentially what we are seeing here is the Republican leadership jeopardizing health insurance reform by providing for rich man's insurance.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as we go through the annual ritual of extending most-favored-nation trading status for China, yet another reason for denying MFN has come to light: China has become the major contributor to weapons proliferation and instability in Asia, with Pakistan being one of the major recipients of Chinese nuclear technology and delivery systems. As was reported in the media last week, there is strong evidence from our own intelligence agencies that Pakistan has deployed nuclear- capable Chinese M-11 missiles, obtained through a secretive transfers that both countries have tried to cover up. Yet, incredibly, despite the overwhelming evidence, the administration seems unwilling to impose the tough economics that both nations clearly deserve. Earlier this year, we failed to punish China or Pakistan for the transfer of 5,000 ring magnets, devices used for the production of weapons-grade enriched uranium. We also went ahead with the transfer of $368 million in United States conventional weapons to Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, it's time to get tough with China, Pakistan, and other nations contributing to the spread of nuclear weapons. Denying MFN to China is an effective way to show that we're serious about nonproliferation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last week the Republicans passed their budget plan which actually increases the deficit starting next year. Projections show that the 1996 deficit will be approximately $130 billion, but under the GOP plan it will increase to $153 billion in 1997. The GOP deficit is also higher in 1998 than this year's deficit. I ask why. The reason is because the GOP are intent on their large tax breaks for the wealthy, part of which are paid for through excessive Medicare cuts. In 1992 the deficit was $290 billion and in 1993 it was $255 billion. Under Democratic leadership the deficit has actually dropped 4 years in a row to the projected $130 billion of this year. What is the reason for the Republican deficit increase? Misplaced priorities, tax breaks for their wealthy friends, and a slush fund for future unnecessary tax breaks. While the Republicans claim to be deficit hawks and the saviors of Medicare, the facts indicate that they are intent on pushing this country further into debt and making large and unnecessary cuts in Medicare. This Republican deficit-increasing budget also makes extreme cuts of $72 billion over 6 years to the Medicaid Program and allows States to cut an additional $178 billion, for a grand total of $250 billion in Medicaid cuts. We are talking about major cuts in Medicaid as well as Medicare. Many people look at the Medicaid Program as primarily for the poor, and, of course, it does assist poor people, but it also pays about 50 percent of all nursing home care for senior citizens. Without Medicaid, many middle-class adult children of nursing home parents will have to pay for their parents' expensive care, while at the same time trying to send their own children through college. Last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Commerce, of which I am a member, voted on the Medicaid Repeal Act, which I vigorously fought. The Medicaid Repeal Act will eliminate all current guarantees of health care coverage and eliminate current guarantees of nursing home benefits to the elderly. This is the Medicaid Repeal Act that the Republican leadership is putting forward. I offered an amendment to this act that would return these guarantees in this terrible legislation, but it was rejected by every Republican. Other Democrats offered similar amendments to continue health care coverage for the disabled, for children, for pregnant women, but again all those amendments were defeated by the Republicans. On top of all this, the GOP Medicaid Repeal Act will sharply reduce payments to hospitals for care. Compounded with the extreme Gingrich- Dole Medicare cuts to hospitals, many will be forced to close their doors, especially hospitals that receive a majority of their income from Medicare and Medicaid. Many hospitals in my home State of New Jersey are in this situation. They are highly Medicare and Medicaid dependent. I am very concerned about their being able to survive these steep cuts that have been proposed by the Republicans in Medicare and Medicaid. Again, the Republican plans will reduce access to health care services. At a time when Congress should be seeking ways to decrease the number of uninsured and underinsured, the Republican leadership's answers will make these problems worse. I thought it was interesting to see Speaker Gingrich take the floor this morning and talk about how he is trying to increase portability and also increase health insurance for those with preexisting health conditions through the Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation. But that reality is that the Speaker and the rest of the Republican leadership have been insisting on including medical savings accounts in this Kennedy- Kassebaum health care reform. What that will mean is that the healthy and the wealthy will opt out of the traditional health insurance programs and the cost for everyone else for health insurance will go up. So again, even though the Republican leadership talks about how they are trying to expand health care options, in fact what they are doing is making those options fewer because more and more people will not be able to afford health insurance. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say in conclusion that in the past Democrats were able to decrease the deficit and preserve Medicare and Medicaid. The Republicans have misplaced priorities and values. The Democrats have a proven track record of reducing the deficit and ensuring that senior citizens have adequate health care. I remain committed to fighting these Republicans efforts that would raise the deficit while at the same time slashing Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I heard what Speaker Gingrich said about the health care reform bill. My concern is that what he mentioned really is very far from the truth. The fact of the matter is the Democrats and Republicans want to see a bill passed that would increase portability and eliminate preeexisting conditions as a factor. But the Republican leadership has insisted on the poison pill of MSA's medical savings accounts. The effect of including medical savings accounts in this legislation is basically to drive up the cost of insurance for the average person. Instead of expanding the opportunities of health care coverage and eliminating the ranks of the uninsured, by including medical savings accounts only the healthy and the wealthy will be able to take advantage of that. The cost for the average person of health insurance will go up. Instead of having more people covered by health insurance, the effect is that there will be less and less people covered by health insurance because they will not be able to afford the higher premiums. The poison pill in MSA's is still there. The suggestion by the Speaker that somehow this legislation, if it includes the MSA's is going to solve the health care problem, is not true.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is the same old thing that we went through last year: Here comes the budget again, and the Republicans are slashing Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. The amazing thing about it is that they are doing it this year and actually increasing the deficit. The deficit goes up from a current projection of $130 billion for fiscal year 1996 to $153 billion for fiscal year 1997, so not only are they trying to destroy the Medicare and Medicaid Program, they are also going against their alleged promise that they are going to reduce the deficit in order to do it. Do Members know where this money is going? All these cuts are going into a giant slush fund. One of my colleagues said before, they are not using the Medicare and Medicaid money in order to pay for tax breaks. In fact, they are, because the cuts go into a slush fund. That slush fund will be used later during the budget process in order to provide those tax breaks for the wealthy. It is the same old story again. The Republicans do not care about the average person. They are just trying to help their rich friends.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Rev. Aaron Nathaniel Gibson, Sr., pastor of the Second Baptist Church of Long Branch, NJ. Reverend Gibson was overwhelmingly elected pastor by the members of the congregation on February 21, 1996, Ash Wednesday, after a 17-year association. Mr. Speaker, the Second Baptist Church of Long Branch has a long and illustrious history, going back more than a century. In the 1880's, a group of believers in the Baptist faith settled in Long Branch. Finding no church, they met in the home of Mrs. Ellen Hill of Brook Street, with Brother William Bloodsaw as their leader. As the group of worshipers grew too large for the house on Brook Street, the congregation moved to Liberty Hall on Broadway, and, from there, back to Brook Street in the public primary school building, and then on to Layton Hall on Broadway. Brother Bloodsaw was succeeded by Reverend Jones, who was followed by Reverend Jeffries. It was during the tenure of Reverend Jeffries that the present site, 93 Liberty Street, was purchased and a frame building was constructed. The current stone building in which the congregation now worships was built in 1904. The church subsequently purchased a parish home on Liberty Street. The Reverend C.P. Williams was installed as pastor in 1934, and served continuously more than 50 years. During these sometimes difficult years of growth, expansion, and stability, the Second Baptist Church distinguished itself not only for providing its members with spiritual inspiration and sustenance, but also for civic, humanitarian, educational, and community endeavors. Reverend Gibson, a native of Baltimore, has great experience not only as a minister, but also as an educator, published writer, human resource manager, and Army chaplain. He has studied at Brookdale Community College, El Paso Community College, Newark State College, and the University of Maryland. He has served as an associate minister of Fulton Baptist Church in Baltimore, assistant pastor of a 750-member church in Vogelweh, Germany, and as the director of parish development for the Army Chaplaincy. Reverend Gibson is married to Sheila Alexander, and they have three children: Aaron Nathaniel, Jr., Damon Garrick, and Rachel Renee. Mr. Speaker, Reverend Gibson is seeking to lead the people of the Second Baptist Church of Long Branch on a spiritual pilgrimage of being ``A Church Led By The Spirit Of God.'' Given the proud history of Second Baptist, the strong bonds of family and community of its members, and the inspired and devoted leadership of Reverend Gibson, I am confident that this spiritual journey will continue for many years to come.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule. Once again, the Republican leadership is determined to make unnecessary cuts in the Medicare Program in the name of tax breaks for the wealthy. Incredibly, this Republican budget actually increases the deficit while making major changes in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs that will ultimately destroy their effectiveness. If there is any doubt about that, I would mention that one of my colleagues from the other side, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], actually passed out a Dear Colleague yesterday where he asked the Members, his colleagues, not to vote for the budget resolution, the conference report, because it increases the deficit from $145 billion in fiscal 1996 to $153 billion in fiscal 1997. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a budget that cuts Medicare and blatantly raises the deficit after so much progress has been made. We have been through 4 years now where the deficit has steadily been going down. Yet, at the same time now, our Republican colleagues are saying to us that is OK, we are going to raise it again for another year or possibly beyond, but at the same time we are going to make these drastic cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that primarily pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt about it, these cuts go into a slush fund that will be used for tax breaks for the wealthy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how many speakers they have on the other side that remain?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] the distinguished minority whip.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day today in the House of Representatives on health care reform. We know that this process began in the President's State of the Union address where he called upon this House, on a bipartisan basis, to pass the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, with the goal essentially of expanding insurance coverage basically for people who have preexisting conditions, who have not been able to get health insurance, or for those who have trouble because they lose their health insurance when they lose their job or transfer from job to job. We had a bipartisan consensus to move on these two issues, portability and preexisting conditions, to expand insurance coverage. But, instead, from the very beginning, the Republican leadership insisted on these medical savings accounts, which is nothing more than a special interest way of providing catastrophic health care coverage that most Americans, except for the healthy and the wealthiest among us, will not be able to take advantage of. It was all done because essentially it was a payback. The Golden Rule Insurance Co. has made big contributions to the GOP, and they would reap big profits if the MSA proposal becomes law. They have given about $1.2 million basically to various GOP causes. So from the very beginning there were not conferees appointed because we know that the other side, the Republicans, wanted to include the MSA's, and they still have. Mr. Speaker, with this proposal today, our understanding is that when the conference is done they will simply ratify a proposal that still allows these MSA's to be included. It is a shame, because the Kennedy- Kassebaum bill was crafted to keep premiums affordable because it would not impact the insurance risk pool by encouraging healthy individuals to drop coverage. The MSA provision does the opposite. It is the poison pill. It basically makes it so that only the healthy and the wealthy can take advantage of this catastrophic coverage, and Americans who do not choose to join the MSA's, because of the high risks involved, will see their health insurance premiums increase. The end result then, Mr. Speaker, is health insurance premiums increase for the average American. And instead of having more people insured, which was the very purpose for the President's call back in his State of the Union address, we will have less Americans insured.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire about the time that remains.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day from the point of view of the Nation's health insurance needs, and I say that because later on this morning there will be a motion to go to conference on the health care insurance reform bill, the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill as it is known, and will also be dealing with a budget that has come back from a conference between the House and the Senate which makes major negative--has a major negative impact on the Medicare and Medicaid Program. And it really did not have to be this way, but unfortunately the Republican leadership keeps insisting on raiding Medicare and Medicaid primarily to pay tax breaks for wealthy Americans and also insists on putting in what I call, and the President has called, I think, the poison pill into the Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform legislation of medical savings accounts. If I could just take a minute, Mr. Speaker, to explain why I think that there are some very bad developments that are occurring today primarily because of the Republican leadership's insistence on catering to special interests. The Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform bill was basically put forward by the two Senators on a bipartisan basis because they recognized that increasingly it is difficult for many people to get health insurance in this country. People who were working, people who are out there who are employed have a difficult time getting health insurance or transferring their health insurance if they lose their jobs or they go to a new job. And so on a bipartisan basis the Senators, Senator Kennedy and Senator Kassebaum, said that they would like to make some changes, relatively minor changes, but still significant for a lot of people in this country, that would allow people, when they lose a job or change jobs, to take their health insurance with them, this so-called portability concept, and also that people who have preexisting conditions, who have had handicaps, who have operations or whatever, who oftentimes find it difficult to buy health insurance would not be shortchanged, would still be able to buy health insurance because preexisting conditions, health conditions, could not be a basis, in many cases, for denying them coverage. Well, we were all very much in favor of that. But here comes the Republican leadership, specifically Speaker Gingrich, that want to attach to that very good legislation what they call medical savings accounts, which I call nothing more than a way for the healthy and the wealthy in this country to take advantage of health insurance at the expense of everyone else. What medical savings accounts do is basically allow people to opt for catastrophic coverage, and they pay out of pocket for the coverage for other daily expenses that are not part of that catastrophic umbrella policy. The problem with it is that it breaks the health insurance pool. The reason why health insurance stays at a certain level and the price does not go up even more is because everyone is in the insurance pool. But if we take the healthy and wealthy out of the pool and we give them a catastrophic umbrella policy, then the people that are left in the insurance pool end up paying more because they are poorer and less healthy. And that is what the medical savings accounts seek to do. They are healthy, wealthy savings accounts essentially, and we know that the consequence of them is that the average costs of health insurance will go up for those people who are employed and in the work force. So I once again say today, we must put a stop to this Republican policy. Essentially it is an effort to act for special interests. There is the Golden Rule Insurance Co. that has contributed a lot to the Republican Party over the years that has been advocating these special type of accounts for the healthy and the wealthy and until we put a stop to it we are not going to see the basic health insurance reforms that are important as part of the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. We also have the budget coming up today which once again makes deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to pay primarily for tax breaks for wealthy Americans. On Medicare what we are seeing is cuts of about $168 billion and also major restructuring of Medicare that will result in doctors being allowed for the first time to overcharge the seniors. Seniors right now are capped.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. That is right.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, and I think that over the next few weeks we will be pointing out more and more about how Medicare and Medicaid are negatively impacted by these Republican proposals. In many ways, even though we have not talked as much, we have talked about it, but there has not been as much discussion on the floor about Medicaid. In many cases the changes proposed on Medicaid are even more drastic, but I think fewer people will be covered. The impact on senior citizens is just as great, as the gentleman said, because so many senior citizens in nursing homes or other institutions will no longer be covered or will not have adequate coverage and will see increasing out-of-pocket expenses. The same things we talked about for Medicare in terms of the overcharges, that is also in the Medicaid legislation that the Republicans have proposed. Those overcharges will not be paid by the seniors but will be paid by the family in many cases. I thank the gentleman for coming down and joining me in discussing this. I know that over the next few weeks we are going to be talking about it more and more, and even though the budget comes before the House tomorrow, a lot of the details will be worked out in the various committees leading up to reconciliation, as we call it, later this year. So we are going to have to continue to fight this battle to preserve Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly.

Mr. PALLONE. The other thing that I was thinking about when the gentleman was talking about this extra out-of-pocket expense is the fact that the majority of seniors now are covered by medigap. So they are already buying a supplemental insurance policy, in many cases called medigap, that covers services and out-of-pocket expenses in some cases as well. I know that I saw an article in the New York Times just a few weeks ago that talked about how costs for Medigap supplemental insurance were going up in our States, the New York metropolitan area, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, something like 14 percent over the next year. So when one thinks about all these extra out-of-pocket costs for the seniors that would result, I would assume also that those Medigap premiums would soar as well, because as fewer services were covered, we would see even a higher cost for Medigap. How far can these people go? How far can the seniors go?