Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Well, as my colleagues know, the best example I think of that is how they included, the Republican leadership included the provision for Medicare savings accounts. Because as we know, the MSA's is another word for them, I guess, were primarily touted by this one insurance company, Golden Rule Insurance Co., that had contributed over a million dollars to the Republican campaign.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today is the 31st anniversary of the creation of Medicare. On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson traveled to Independence, MO to sign Medicare into law at the home of President Harry Truman who had been fighting for Medicare for 20 years. The Democrats today had a birthday celebration for Medicare with senior citizens and Vice President Gore. Basically, what we are celebrating is the 31st anniversary of Medicare because it has been such a success in terms of a Government program that may very well be the most successful Government program. We want to renew our commitment to protecting Medicare from deep cuts and work to continue its solvency for many years to come. That is why the families first agenda that the Democrats have put forward includes the protection of Medicare as a key element of a balanced budget proposal. This followed the lead of President Clinton, who proved this winter that the budget can be balanced while still extending Medicare solvency into the next century. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that the creation of Medicare did not happen overnight. On the contrary, it took 13 years to finally make Medicare a reality for our Nation's seniors. Against staunch Republican opposition, Medicare passed the House and the Senate in 1965. Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1996, 30 years later, and for the first time since before the creation of Medicare, one of their first acts was to basically make significant changes or suggest significant changes in Medicare so that it would not be Medicare as we know it. A lot of this was done without hearings, without any real input, in my opinion, from the American people, and I think it was the wrong way to go. Fortunately, Democrats spent most of 1995 and also a good part of 1996 fighting against these Republican proposals, which would have significantly changed Medicare and I think made it into a program that we would not have recognized. I wanted to stress today, on the 31st anniversary, that prior to Medicare less than 50 percent of all seniors had any health insurance at all. Today, on the other hand, over 99 percent of America's seniors can rely on Medicare's services. So the reason Medicare was established was primarily because many senior citizens did not have health insurance. It was a need that was very much felt back in 1965. Prior to Medicare many seniors were faced with the dilemma of choosing between food, shelter, or health care. Now America's seniors are living longer and can be assured they will have quality health care services. In 1965 there were Republicans in Congress, including most notably then Congressman Bob Dole, who ardently fought the creation of Medicare. In 1965, 93 percent of the House Republicans, including Bob Dole, voted for a substitute that would have killed Medicare as we know it. In 1995, 30 years later, Senator Bob Dole and Speaker Gingrich attempted to change Medicare as we know it by cutting $270 billion for tax breaks for the wealthy. Last October, Senator Dole stated, ``I was there fighting the fight, voting against Medicare,'' referring to his opposition to the program in 1965. It is no wonder, then, that many Democrats doubt the Republican leadership when they say that they care about Medicare or they want to fix it. We know that many of them, most of them in fact, in 1965 opposed it, including then Representative Dole, who is of course now the Republican Presidential candidate. We also quote, and I have quoted many times on this floor, Speaker Newt Gingrich, who last year stated, ``We don't get rid of it,'' that is Medicare, ``in round one because we don't think that's politically smart, but we think it's going to wither on the vine.'' Again I would point out that although Speaker Gingrich has recently said that perhaps he did not mean what he said in terms of Medicare withering on the vine, if we look at the Republican proposals that have been put forward in this Congress, in effect what they do is they make Medicare wither on the vine because they provide a situation where there is so much money taken out of the program, again primarily to finance tax breaks for wealthy individuals, and they make so many changes in the Medicare program that essentially force seniors to choose managed care where they do not have their choice of doctors or sometimes even their choice of hospitals, so that the changes in the programs and the cuts in the program ultimately will make Medicare as we know it wither on the vine. Just to reiterate some of the things that would come about under the initial Republican plans, again the changes have been vast. When this Congress started out in January of 1995, there were some drastic changes in Medicare that were proposed then and we have seen the Republican position change a little almost on a monthly basis ever since then. But if we go back to the initial Republican plans, those that were put forward in January of 1995 when this Congress began, when the Republican leadership was in the majority for the first time in 40 years, under that initial Republican plan, seniors would have been faced with additional copayments, increased premiums, increased deductibles, rationed care and a limited choice of doctors. Medicare eligibility would have gone from 65 years of age to 67 years of age, and Medicare availability ultimately would have only been available to the neediest of seniors. As Democrats began to speak out against these proposals, beginning in the early part of last year, many of these proposals were dropped. But the Gingrich-Dole Medicare plan of 1995 was still a plan to end Medicare as we know it. It did call for a substantial increase in costs to seniors while, at the same time, providing less in terms of quality of service. It called for cuts of $270 billion. Seniors would have to pay more and get less. They would have been forced into managed care with no choice of doctors. Last year I was here on the House floor on the 30th anniversary of Medicare and Democrats stood with seniors to protect Medicare from Republican raids. One year later we can say that we defeated Republican efforts to enact the Gingrich-Dole Medicare plan, but I need to stress that this war is not over. Although Medicare, because of Democratic opposition, because of President Clinton's opposition, basically these Republican proposals that change it have essentially been dropped and are really not talked about any more, but I have to stress that the war is not over. The Republican leadership has a new budget blueprint they unveiled in 1996, earlier this year, that calls for $168 billion in cuts for a tax break slush fund. Seniors, again, would be forced to pay more and get less. In addition, this new plan will allow doctors to overcharge seniors for providing health care services. And current law of course protects seniors from these excessive charges. All I can say is that Republicans are at it again. I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, on Medicare's 31st anniversary today to affirm that Democrats remain committed to improving Medicare in a common sense fashion. Unlike our Republican counterparts, we are not sorry that hundreds of thousands of seniors rely on Medicare. We think it is a good program. We are pleased that it has doubled the number of seniors who now receive health care and we think it is a proven success story, certainly worth protecting. Now, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a comparison, if I could, between the Republican proposal on Medicare in 1995 and the one that we have this year, which again we have not been hearing much about anymore, but I think it is worth mentioning because it certainly is going to be an issue for many months and many years to come. I just want to go through, if I could, in a little detail, the effect of some of these proposals. Again, I am going back to 1995, the last year when, as I said, some of the more radical Republican leadership proposals to change Medicare were brought to the floor of this House. And let me just talk about a few of them. First of all, there was the proposal to double Medicare part B premiums. Many people know that Medicare has part A and part B. Part B covers the doctors' bills, essentially. The Republican proposal basically increased the amount that seniors would have to pay out-of- pocket every month to get their Medicare part B coverage. Again, the Democrats opposed that. And as a consequence, the actual monthly part B premium actually decreased at the end of the year instead of actually doubling as was proposed by the Republican leadership. The last year's proposal also attempted to eliminate doctor's choice. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, ``We want to give you more choices because we want to give you the choice of managed care.'' But as many seniors know, and most people know, managed care often does not allow you to have the doctor you are used to having. Senior citizens tell me in my district over and over again that the biggest concern they have about Medicare is they want to be able to choose their own doctor. And how did the Republican proposal move people into managed care? It did not say you had to go into managed care, but what it said was you had to provide a higher reimbursement rate for physicians who were in managed care than for those who were not. So there were financial incentives to make doctors as well as senior citizens effectively be forced into managed care. Another thing that was done that I think was really terrible was the Republican bill last year actually cut Medicare premium assistance for low-income seniors, and here I want to spend a little time saying that there is a relationship between Medicare, which is the health care insurance program for all seniors, and Medicaid, which is the health care insurance program for poor people, for people of low income. Under the current Medicare law, if a senior citizen in eligible for Medicaid because of their low income, then their part B premium per month for their doctors bills is actually paid for by Medicaid. Well, the Republican proposal that came before the House last year would have eliminated that and essentially said that there was not going to be any guaranteed coverage to pay for the part B premium if you were a senior that was below a certain income. There were other Medicaid changes that the Republican leadership had proposed that also would have had a negative impact on senior citizens. First, they suggested repealing the Federal nursing home quality standards, so basically the Federal Government would not have any say over the quality of care in nursing homes. They also put homes and family farms of elderly couples at risk for nursing home care, because under current Medicaid law the home of the senior citizen or the spouse who is in the nursing home is basically insulated from the Government's ability to take it or sell it and use it to pay for their nursing home coverage. Well, they would have changed that. It was one of the proposals they put forward in their change to Medicaid last year. They also made the change in Medicare that would have forced adult children to be financially liable for their parent's nursing home bills. Right now, under current law, if a parent or grandparent is placed in the nursing home under Medicaid, the Government cannot go after the children or the grandchildren to pay the cost. Some people may say, well, gee, why not let them pay the cost. But the bottom line oftentimes is that money is used by younger people to pay for their own children's college or their own children's education or other purposes and to say that we want to change the law and that they have to take care of their parents or grandparents I think does a lot of mischief. Now, those were the proposals, those where the aspects of the Republican Medicare bill and Medicaid bill changes that I though were the most negative and had the most impact in last year's proposal on Medicare and Medicaid. But this year again we have new Republican leadership proposals on Medicare and Medicaid, and I think that the gist of it is essentially the same. Let me just highlight some of the things that I consider the most negative. First of all, eliminating doctor and hospital choice by forcing seniors into Medicare managed care plans. Now, again, they take a different tact on how to do this. They will say, my colleagues on the other side will say we are not forcing seniors into managed care. They can still choose between the traditional fee-for-service plan, where they have their own doctor and their own hospital or then can go into managed care. They have the choice. But what this new Medicare proposal does is to say if you stay in the traditional Medicare plan, where you choose your own doctor, then you can have unlimited what we call balance billing. In other words, the doctors can charge you an unlimited amount over and above what Medicare pays. Obviously, we can see that the senior does not really have a choice, because if they have to pay all that extra money they will go to a managed care system because they cannot afford the extra money out of pocket. So again the seniors are forced into managed care, where they do not have a choice of doctors. The way of doing it is different from last year, but the effect is the same, the long-term effect is exactly the same. I see my colleague from Connecticut, Congresswoman DeLauro, is here to join me, and I know she has been out there every day for the last 18 months basically bringing up how terrible these changes in Medicare are that the Republican leadership has proposed, and I would like to yield to her at this time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in today in support of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 for very important reasons: Shore protection and responsible disposal of contaminated dredged materials. I would like to thank Chairman Shuster Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Sherry Boehlert, and Ranking Member Bob Borski for their support on these critical issues--issues that are particularly important for my State, New Jersey. Included as part of this bill is the Shore Protection Act, a bill sponsored by Clay Shaw and myself as the cochairs of the Congressional Coastal Caucus. This bill will clarify and reaffirm the role of the Federal Government in shore protection, and--in particular--beach nourishment activities. Congress has repeatedly rejected the administration policy to end Army Corps participation inshore protection projects. By passing this bill, we are taking the additional step of actually mandating the Federal Government's role in shore protection. And for that reason, I am pleased to support this bill. In addition, WRDA 1996 contains provisions that are greatly significant to the responsible disposal of contaminated dredged material, and by that I mean disposal that does not include ocean dumping. These provisions will allow our ports to be dredged without threatening our ocean environment or our coastal economy. I would like to thank my colleagues from new Jersey who are on the committee--and in particular, Bob Franks and Bob Menendez--for their hard work and support on this issue. The port provisions in this bill will take us a long way to getting out of the ocean for dredged material disposal by providing for Federal/non-federal cost-sharing of confined disposal facilities, it will open up the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for use on these disposal facilities, it will allow for tipping fees to be levied for use of these facilities, it authorizes a much needed confined disposal facility for the Port of New York and New Jersey, and it reauthorizes the ongoing sediment decontamination technology demonstration project for the Port of New York and New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I really do again want to thank the committee, and the ranking members and the chairman of both the full committee and subcommittee, for their support. This is a very important bill for the State of New Jersey, and does a lot and goes a long way towards protecting our ocean environment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this temporary reauthorization of the most important provisions of Energy Policy and Conservation Act, through September 30 of this year. While I would prefer a simple extension of EPCA--one that covered its State Energy Conservation programs and other authorities--I support this legislation because it ensures the United States and industry are able to fulfill their major emergency-related responsibilities. These include planning for international oil crises and management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I thank Chairman Schaefer for bringing this extension to the House floor, and I look forward to working with him in September to resolve the remaining issues. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today is the 31st anniversary of President Johnson's signature of the Medicare bill. I want to affirm that Democrats remain committed to improving Medicare in a commonsense fashion. It took Democrats 13 years to overcome Republicans' opposition to Medicare and enact the program. In 1965, Mr. Speaker, 93 percent of the House Republicans, including then-Representative Bob Dole, voted for a substitute that would have killed Medicare as we know it. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in this House of Representatives is continuing that effort essentially to change Medicare in a fashion so it will not be the Medicare that we know. Unlike our Republican counterparts, we as Democrats are not sorry that hundreds of thousands of seniors rely on Medicare. Instead, we are pleased that it has doubled the number of seniors who now receive health care. Medicare is a proven success worth protecting. Democrats are determined to do that.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican campaign finance bill and support the commonsense Farr substitute. The Republican bill is basically a sham. The Republicans received so much criticism from their own parties and groups, such as Common Cause and United We Stand, that they are now seeking to amend their own bill. It is clear the Republican bill is changing campaign spending to allow more money into the political process, not less, completely contrary to the will of the American people. Now, let me tell my colleagues why I like the Farr substitute. Every source of private funds for a campaign, in my opinion, is basically bad. I would like to see public financing of campaigns, but we are not voting on that today. But the nice thing, the good thing about the Farr substitute is it caps the amount of money that is spent on a campaign and then mixes up the sources of those funds, $600,000 maximum, and then it says only $200,000 from PAC's, only $200,000 from large donors, which is defined as $200 or more, only $50,000 of a Member's own individual money, and I guess the rest probably small donors. That is what we need, a mixture of various sources of funding so no funding source, not wealthy individuals, not PAC's or individual contributions, is the primary source of money for a campaign. It is only through mixing the sources and capping the amount of money that we can spend on a campaign that I think we have a way of financing a campaign that basically makes sense and does not allow for special interests or any particular interests to influence too much what happens to the campaign. In the same way the Farr bill also allows for lower postal rates, it reduces rates for broadcasting, and so it allows the message to get out better. That is what campaigns should be all about: Who is the best candidate? Who has the best message? Not who has the wealthiest contributor or who has the most PAC money or who has the most money overall. The reason why this Republican bill is terrible and is a sham is because it is trying to put more money into campaigns and not limit the amount and the sources of the financing.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say I am very pleased to see that this Republican bill went down to defeat today and also to see that so many Republicans actually joined with the Democrats in defeating the bill. I think it shows that there is some sense in this House, and once again people have risen up and recognized that we have to have true campaign finance reform and the way of the Republican leadership, which is just let more wealthy people, more special interests and more money be basically the basic tenet of financing a campaign is not the way to go. Now we have the opportunity, I think, to move toward true campaign finance reform that limits the amount that can be spent on a campaign and that looks to different sources of income for the campaign other than just wealthy contributors.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Newt Gingrich is now running away from this quote and saying that he did not mean to say that Medicare would wither on the wine, but the bottom line is that the Republican leadership's actions and the legislation that they pass in this House would accomplish that goal. By cutting Medicare by $270 billion in order to finance tax breaks for the wealthy, essentially what happens is that the Medicare Program will not have enough money to finance quality health care for seniors and the level of services for seniors. In addition, the Republican Medicare plan would have doubled premiums and forced seniors out of traditional Medicare because they would no longer have their choice of doctors. That is what the Republican Party is all about. Lest anybody think that they were not going to continue this policy, they voted on another budget this year in this House of Representatives that again would slash Medicare in order to finance tax breaks to the wealthy. Today was the day when they were supposed to report back on how they were going to destroy and change Medicare structurally so that it would basically wither on the vine. Well, that deadline is passed. But I would still like to know what the Republican leadership has in mind for Medicare in this Congress. We still do not know, but one thing is for sure: The seniors should beware.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I also want to say that I regret the retirement of both the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee. The two of them always worked in a bipartisan manner. They are examples in this House of Representatives of what Members and chairman and ranking members truly should be, and I want to commend them for all their efforts. Particularly this year once again, just as an example of their forward thinking in my opinion, is the report language in this bill that once again rejects the policy that was suggested by the administration that we not, that the Federal Government cut back or eliminate its role in shore protection, beach replenishment and small navigation projects. I looked at the report language today, and I am very pleased to see that it does commend the administration for dropping its opposition to support Federal support of flood control projects; but as we know, we continue to see this distinction in the administration's eyes between flood control and beach erosion protection, and the administration even goes further and suggests that they would fund structural improvements along the coastal areas, but not sand replenishment projects. I just give you an example in my own district where the committee has once again funded a beach replenishment project that involves both a structural sea wall as well as sand replenishment. We cannot have one without the other. It makes no sense. It makes no sense for the Federal Government to say they will pay for a seawall but not pay for the protective sand that is placed in front of the seawall. Once again, the subcommittee has rightly pointed out that it is essentially discriminatory to say that coastal areas cannot have that form of flood protection, whereas inland areas would, if the administration policy was to be continued and to be enacted. I also wanted to say the same thing is true for small navigation projects. There is really no distinction from an economic point of view for a State or locality with a small navigation project, which tends to be recreational, versus a large commercial project. In New Jersey, tourism is actually our No. 1 industry. More money is engendered in New Jersey through tourism than any other industry. To suggest that somehow small navigational programs are not important is not accurate.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Bilirakis and Mrs. Maloney, the co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic issues, for their tireless efforts on behalf of the Greek- American community and for putting together this special order to mark the 22d anniversary of Turkey's illegal invasion and occupation of Cyprus. Restoring independence and freedom to the island nation of Cyprus is, in my opinion, one of the most important foreign policy challenges the United States continues to face and I am saddened that yet another year has gone by without much progress. I am, however, as equally determined to keep Congress actively involved in this issue until a just settlement for the Cypriot people is reached. Accordingly, I would like to commend the American delegation dispatched by the administration to Greece, Cyprus, and Turkey last week for their dedication. Headed by our Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright and the President's Special Emissary for Cyprus Richard Beattie, as well as other high level State Department officials working on the Cyprus problem, the delegation is once again offering American assistance in breaking the now 22-year-old stalemate and bringing peace to the region. The history of this issue is well known to all of us. On July 20, 1974, 6,000 Turkish troops invaded Cyprus, stealing its independence after a campaign of pillaging, terror, and murder. Over the next 22 years, the Turkish Government fortified its illegal occupation force, defiantly ignoring the calls from the international community--including multiple U.N. resolutions--to allow the Cypriot people to live a free and sovereign life. Today 1,619 people, including 5 American citizens, remain missing as a result of the invasion, and the Turkish occupying force stands at some 35,000 troops. A barbed wire fence, moreover, divides the island in two, prohibiting thousands of Greek Cypriots the freedom to live on and travel to some 37 percent of their own country. Mr. Speaker, during the 22 years the Turkish Government has been fortifying its illegal occupation force and thumbing its nose at the international community, the United States has reviewed the Cyprus problem at least 150 times. And while we all hope, as we do each time the United States intensifies its focus on the Cyprus issue, that the current delegation's effort will lead to a breakthrough, we must convey to the Turks in no uncertain terms that we are prepared to return 150 more times, or as many times as it takes to secure a just resolution for the Cypriot people. It is a message the Turks have always found hard to swallow. The Turkish Government has found this message hard to digest because agreeing to a just settlement on Cyprus is a solution rooted in the larger acceptance of international law--a principle which the Turks openly, and hostily, rebuke. Indeed, since we gathered here last year to mark this occasion, the Turks nearly introduced yet more armed conflict into an already unstable area with their unfounded claim to the Creek islet Imia in the Agean Sea. This extremely volatile claim has, in fact, elevated Turkey's disregard for international law to a new level. As Greece's foreign minister, Theodore Pangalos stated ``this is the first time that Turkey has actually laid claim to Creek territory.'' Though violence was averted through the personal intervention of President Clinton in the matter, Turkey remains opposed to Greece's offer to submit the dispute by itself to the International Court at The Hague for a peaceful, legal resolution. It is precisely this type of intransigence--ignoring opportunities to resolve disputes in peaceful manners--that has now stretched the Cyprus problem into its 22d year. Just last year Cyprus' President extended an olive branch to the Turks and suggested that Cyprus be demilitarized as part of an effort to create a peaceful environment under which negotiations for a comprehensive solution to the dispute could be conducted. The House of Representatives strongly endorsed the idea last year, passing House Concurrent Resolution 42, echoing the Cypriot President's call to demilitarize the island. The Turks have so far rejected the idea. In response, many of us in the House joined forces to send Turkey a strong message. As was the case during consideration of the fiscal year 1996 budget, we were successful again this year in passing amendments to the fiscal year 1997 foreign appropriations bill that cuts aid to Turkey in response to its continued illegal occupation of Cyprus, its inhumane blockade of Armenia, its campaign of oppression against its own Kurdish population and its general disregard of human rights. As these measures indicate, we are steadfastly committed to once again seeing a free an independent Cyprus. We will continue to ensure Congress plays an active role in pressuring Turkey to abide by all relevant U.N. resolutions and insist that any solution to the Cyprus problem must be based on the establishment of a single sovereign state with a single citizenship. Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 years the United States has used its influence to help further the causes of peace and freedom in some of the world's most intractable, bitter disputes, such as in the Middle East, Bosnia, and Northern Ireland. Let us hope that in the coming year our work will allow us to add Cyprus to that list so that when we gather next, it will be to celebrate the island's liberation instead of to mark yet another year of division.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to express outrage over Republican efforts to take off the air a commercial that has been running by many of the labor organizations that is critical of the Republican record on Medicare. As we know, many times Democrats have gotten up here in the House to point out that the cuts proposed by the Republican leadership in Medicare are going to hurt America's seniors and ultimately destroy and eliminate the Medicare Program as we know it. This is nothing more than another effort by the Republican leadership to gag the efforts of working Americans. Essentially, labor unions represent working Americans, who want to tell the truth about Medicare and what the Republicans are proposing to do to a program that is important for seniors, to working people, to those who have to go into nursing homes. This is not the first time we have seen a Republican effort to gag those who want to speak the truth on the Medicare issue. When the Medicare debate began in my committee, the Committee on Commerce, there was only one hearing on the issue and the senior citizens who showed up to want to speak were arrested. Once again the Republicans are trying to gag the truth on Medicare.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, July 28, Calvary Baptist Church of Belmar, NJ, will celebrate its 100th anniversary. The celebration will begin with a worship service Sunday morning, followed by a luncheon at the Belmar Elks Club. Mr. Speaker, Calvary Baptist Church was founded on Christmas Day 1894 by a group of families who desired to worship together in the Baptist tradition. The official organization as a church was completed on July 1, 1896, and the first communion was held July 26 of that year. The original name was Memorial Baptist Church, and the building was originally erected at the corner of Main Street and 12th Avenue. In July 1925, the name was changed to Calvary Baptist Church and the building was moved to its present location at 13th Avenue and E Street. A Sunday school wing and fellowship hall were later added to the facility. Several descendants of the original families still attend the church, while new families continue to join the church all the time. Under the leadership of the Reverend Grace I. Scarle, pastor of the church, Calvary Baptist seeks to be a community church, following the call in Ephesians 4:11-6 ``To prepare believers in Jesus Christ for works of service in His name.'' In that spirit, Calvary Baptist Church holds Sunday worship services in both the morning and the evening, Sunday school, vacation Bible school, and prayer and Bible study. The church also hosts a variety of community functions, including youth groups, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and the Catacombs Coffee House, and provides a food pantry ministry for the community. Mr. Speaker, on this occasion, it gives me great pride to offer my congratulations to Reverend Scarle and all the members of Calvary Baptist Church as they celebrate the 100th anniversary of this great center of spiritual strength and community service on the Jersey shore.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to devote my 5 minutes to the issue of Medicare, but I could not help but just briefly comment on the previous speaker whom I greatly admire. When I was home in my district in New Jersey this weekend, I was at a church service on Sunday. As I was coming out, a couple of people commented to me, one on Medicare which I will go into soon, but the other said something about the President. He said, ``You know, one thing I admire about the President is the fact that we are at peace. We are at peace throughout the world.'' I think that kind of says it all. I frankly think that President Clinton's foreign policy has been a major success. In fact, he has kept us out of many wars around the world and has brought peace to many parts of the world that were not at peace before. I think that says a lot about his foreign policy and its success. I just wanted to also comment on one of my previous colleague's statements, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller], when he berated the fact that President Clinton had vetoed the Republican Medicare legislation. All I can say is thank God that President Clinton was there and did veto that legislation. The Democrats basically in this Congress have prevented the Republican leadership from devastating Medicare. The Republican leadership has proposed major cuts in Medicare that would primarily pay for tax cuts for wealthy individuals and they have tried to change a program substantively so that essentially what would happen is that Medicare would disappear as we know it. Democrats prevented the Republican leadership last year from doubling Medicare Part B premiums and from any attempts to eliminate doctor choice which is very important to the average senior citizen. They prevented cutting Medicare premium assistance for low-income seniors, something that I actually tried to accomplish in the Committee on Commerce. A lot of people forget that the Republican leadership wanted to eliminate the current program where for low-income seniors Medicaid pays for Medicare part B premiums. We also stopped the Republicans from repealing Federal nursing home quality standards. Medicaid is a very important part of the overall program to provide quality health care for senior citizens as well. The Republican leadership tried to eliminate and gut Medicaid as well. They wanted to repeal Federal nursing home quality standards, they wanted to put homes and family farms of elderly couples at risk for nursing home care, and they wanted to force adult children to be financially responsible for their parents nursing home bills because two-thirds of Medicaid goes to pay for senior citizens who are in nursing homes. If that aid is eliminated or cut back significantly, we were going to see elderly relatives or also children having to pay for their parents or their grandparents in nursing homes. All of this I am mentioning today because now we see the Republicans trying to basically rewrite history and say that they were not trying to devastate and eliminate Medicare. Most significantly we have gotten some criticism on our side of the aisle because we constantly quote a statement by Speaker Gingrich. I just want to read that statement again. Speaker Gingrich said, and this was last year on October 26: We don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition period. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it. As many of my colleagues know, the AFL-CIO, the labor international organization, has been putting on ads where they have actual pictures, video, if you will, of Speaker Gingrich making this quote about Medicare. Now the Republicans are trying to take it off the air because they are afraid of the truth. Let me tell my colleagues, what could be more appropriate, what is more significant than the kind of cuts and the kind of changes in Medicare that the Republicans were trying to achieve? If those had been accomplished, if President Clinton and the Democrats had not stopped those major changes in Medicare, then indeed Medicare would have withered on the vine which is exactly what Speaker Gingrich says that he wants to do. For those who think that the Republicans have changed, they have not changed. In this session of Congress, I should say in this year, they have already proposed another budget that makes significant cuts and changes in Medicare. Their current plan, a little different maybe than last year, but still tries to do the same thing: It would eliminate doctor and hospital choice by forcing seniors into Medicare managed care plans, it would allow doctors to charge extra out-of-pocket costs to seniors who remain in Medicare fee-for-service, it would severely cut Medicare and Medicaid hospital funding, forcing many hospitals to close their doors on seniors, it would eliminate coverage guarantee for over 4 million elderly Americans who need nursing home care, that is the Medicaid aspect again, and would further erode Medicare solvency by creating wealthy healthy plans leaving many seniors with higher costs and less care. What the Republicans are doing once again is cutting the amount of money that is available for Medicare which ultimately will translate into less quality care and less services for senior citizens.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I am really pleased that the gentleman pointed out the relationship between Medicaid and Medicare, because I think many people think that Medicaid is a program that is primarily for the poor. Of course, it is. But the bottom line is that two-thirds of the money under Medicaid pays for nursing home care. It is very easy for someone who is middle class or someone who is fairly wealthy after a few months or a few years, in some cases, in a nursing home to find themselves on Medicaid. That is why so much of the Medicaid dollars in fact go for senior citizens. It is interesting, I want to yield, but I just wanted to say that we started out the year, I think, certainly last year where the Republican leadership was trying to cut and change dramatically Medicare. I think as they realized politically that that was not working too well with the American people, they started to talk about it less and less. Now they do not want us to remind them about it. Then they started going to Medicaid, because they figured, well, maybe we can cut that and we can change that and people will not worry about it so much because it only affects poor people. Then they realized that these senior citizens, in particular, who are impacted by changes in Medicaid, who objected to it, we brought it out. So now we do not hear much talk about changes in Medicaid anymore either. I think we can be sure that if the Republican leadership were to continue into the next Congress and if we did not have President Clinton out there threatening to veto these changes in Medicare and Medicaid, we would see both the drastic changes in Medicare and Medicaid come up once again.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am in the well tonight because I feel very strongly that myself, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] and others that are going to be joining us here tonight, Democrats, spent a lot of time last year as well as this year as part of basically an effort to try to make the point, and I believe successfully made the point that the Republican leadership in this Congress was trying to destroy Medicare as we know it. Democrats basically started Medicare over 30 years ago, Democratic Presidents, Democratic Congresses, because they were concerned that so many senior citizens did not have health care, either were not able to afford health insurance or found themselves unable to obtain health insurance as they became senior citizens. Over the last 30 years, Medicare has been very successful as a program in guaranteeing that almost all, almost 100 percent of the senior citizens in this country get health care and get good health care. It is not only a question of the fact that they are covered by Medicare but they have a choice of physicians, they have a choice of hospitals and the level of coverage, what is included in their coverage, as well as the quality of care that they receive generally is pretty good. That is a dramatic change from the situation before Medicare existed. Well, as my colleagues know, we faced a new Congress back in January of 1995 under the Republican leadership. One of the first things, and I have to admit I was very surprised, one of the first things that happened was that a budget was presented which essentially cut Medicare as well as Medicaid drastically, primarily to pay for tax cuts for tax breaks, if you will, mostly for wealthy Americans. But the proposals that came from the Republican leadership did not just cut Medicare, did not just cut the amount of money that was going into Medicare, they also tried to change the system dramatically so that senior citizens would not have a choice of doctors. Many would be pushed into managed care. many would also find that they had to pay higher out-of-pocket costs because their part B premiums would go up or because they would have to pay more as a copayment to their physician. What we saw is, as I said, a dramatic change in the structure of Medicare as well as drastic cuts in the amount of money that would go into the program. We fought hard against these Republican proposals, and we were successful. The Medicare program is today still the way it was 2 years ago. The dramatic cuts have not been implemented, and I suppose not surprisingly, because the Republican leadership realized at some point over the last 18 months that this was not working and that we were getting the message across, if you will, to the American public that this is what the Republican leadership wanted to do. All of a sudden, we see where the Republicans do not want to talk about Medicare anymore. They sort of pretend like all these debates and all these votes, these many times when they tried to cut it and change it, never occurred. So I was not surprised that last week 3 House Republican leaders held a press conference, last Wednesday, to basically discuss the new ads that the AFL-CIO has been putting on the air in various parts of the country where they point out that Speaker Gingrich and other Republican leaders were pushing for these Medicare cuts and basically changing, I would say actually destroying Medicare as we know it. The Republican leaders basically got up and said, oh, those things are not true, we never tried to do that. Well, let me tell Members that they did and regardless of their rhetoric, the old statement ``Actions speak louder than words,'' well, the fact is the actions do speak louder than words in this case. Whatever the Republicans say now, the bottom line is that after taking control of Congress, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans set themselves to the task of slashing Medicare by $270 billion. If this Congress had passed and the President had signed, which we did not, their Medicare bill, seniors would have been forced out of traditional Medicare by making it prohibitively expensive to stay in the program. They would have been forced. Basically, they would have lost the choice, I should say, of their doctors and hospitals because essentially they would have been forced into managed care where they did not have the choice of doctors and hospitals. I do not think anybody really should be surprised by this because we know well that it took something like 13 years for Democrats to overcome Republican opposition and enact the Medicare Program on July 30, 1965. And in 1965, 93 percent of the House Republicans, including then Representative Bob Dole, now the Republican candidate for President, voted for a substitute that would have killed Medicare as we know it. Over 60 percent of Republican Senators voted for a similar substitute. So we know historically the Republicans were opposed to Medicare, they continued that effort when they took back the majority in this Congress, and regardless of what the Speaker or the now Presidential candidate Bob Dole says, the bottom line is that they have over the years consistently tried to either stop Medicare from becoming law or change it dramatically in a most negative way. I would like to now yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] who really has been outspoken on this issue from the very beginning and really led the whole battle to make sure that we retain Medicare as it is and not make the drastic changes that the Republican leadership proposed.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman. I want to say briefly I am so glad he pointed out how the Repulbican leadership is really trying to gag this whole issue and trying to go after the media and those stations that cover these ads. From the very beginning, and we have the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Stupak, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Klink, who are also members of the Committee on Commerce with myself, and we can remember when Medicare, when this Republican Medicare proposal came before our committee, there was only one hearing. The Republican leadership did not want their proposed cuts and the changes in Medicare that they were proposing to be aired with the public. When the senior citizens showed up at the hearing, they were actually arrested.

Mr. PALLONE. Certainly.

Mr. PALLONE. And every one of you, I certainly know the gentlewoman from Connecticut and everyone else here, I believe, we were forced, because we could not get a hearing in order to tell the truth about what the Republicans were doing, we were forced to go out in the lawn in the rain, which was a memorable day to have a hearing, to tell the truth. So I see this almost as a first amendment issue. The Republicans do not want the truth to be told. So they are now threatening the media, the way they threatened and tried to gag the people that came and tried to testify at the hearing. They just do not want the truth to come out. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro.

Mr. PALLONE. I think the gentlewoman is right. Just from talking to my own constituents, particularly this weekend, I think people understand that that is why they wanted President Clinton where he is, because they are concerned about the hurt that this Congress is doing, if you will, to the average American, particularly on the Medicare issue. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.

Mr. PALLONE. I would just add to the gentleman: You know, I think that that is what elections should be all about: issues. That is what we are talking about here. I would like to see less emphasis on personality, which is what so many campaigns are about, and just talk about issues. That is what we are talking about here, Medicare. It is an issue, and to the extent that there are ads running that point out where one side stands or the other on an issue as important as Medicare to the American people, that is what this should be all about, a public debate on the issues, and that is what the Democrats have been doing essentially for the last 18 months, trying to point out what the Republican leadership has been proposing on Medicare. And I really think, as you said, Mr. Doggett, that most of my constituents are aware of it. Over the weekend I had a lot of people, I can just think of one woman in particular who came up to me when I was at church on Sunday and said. ``You know, I don't want to lose my doctor.'' She was not even concerned about the level of funding. She just did not like the idea that she was going to be pushed into managed care, which is essentially what this Republican plan would propose to do. So, I want to thank the gentleman for joining us tonight. We had a lot of participants here tonight, but we are not going to let this die, because I think we all realize that if this Republican leadership were allowed to have its way, we would see drastic changes in Medicare and cuts that ultimately would have it wither on the vine and cases to exist as a program that benefits seniors and provides for quality care and the level of services that they now have. So I want to thank the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly; thank you. I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman and just, if I could, briefly comment on what the gentlewoman said when she raised again the quote from Speaker Gingrich about Medicare withering on the vine. It is amazing to me how he can now suggest that somehow that statement was only meant to be applicable to the fact that they were changing Medicare to force people into managed care, as opposed to the traditional fee-for-service system, because it seems to me that is exactly the context in which the program would wither on the vine. If you take away a lot of the money from Medicare and make the significant cuts that the Republicans have proposed, then the quality of care has to suffer because there is not going to be the money available to provide the level of services and the quality of services that Medicare now provides. If you force everyone into managed care, or you make managed care cheaper than the traditional fee-for-service system where you can choose your own doctor and then so many people do not have a choice of doctor anymore, then the reality is that Medicare has changed and does begin to wither on the vine. More and more people will find it necessary to supplement the program if they can afford it, which a lot of them cannot, in order to be able to have their own doctor. So it does wither on the vine. That is exactly what the quote was meant to say, and that is exactly what they were doing. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield now to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate over the so-called welfare reform legislation today, as well as last night, and I felt very strongly that the Republican leadership bill was not welfare reform, would not accomplish the goal of getting people off of welfare and working into productive jobs, into being productive members of society. I also was very concerned over the fact that it would take away many of the protections for children in this country. It disturbed me to a great extent to listen to some of the statements that were being made on the Republican side of the aisle on the issue of welfare reform and what we need to do to get people back to work, one of the basic tenets of this Republican leadership bill, and I think that is how it differs a great deal from the Democrat or bipartisan Castle-Tanner substitute, which I supported, is that the Republican leadership bill essentially is money-driven. In other words, its major focus, if you will, is to try to save significant amounts of money that would theoretically help us balance the budget and reduce the Federal deficit. In its drive to save money, it assumes that by cutting back on programs like food stamps and other types of assistance, that that will ultimately end the welfare system and get people to work and get people productive jobs. Historically, if you look at successful welfare reforms that have been tried out in may States in this country, and the States really have been good laboratories to experiment with ways to produce welfare reform, in many cases it has actually cost the State more money, and the notion that somehow welfare reform will at least in the short run result in monetary savings is simply a false premise. Think about it for a minute. If you are saying that the State is going to get people off welfare, oftentimes that involves job training, which costs money; oftentimes it requires day care, because most welfare recipients, at least those on AFDC, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, are mothers with dependent children. So it costs money to provide day care. It costs money to provide job training or education. If often costs money to provide for health benefits so that there is health insurance coverage for children. So where does the notion come that somehow we are going to save money for the deficit, at least in the short run, by providing for welfare reform? I think that is a basic tenet of this Republican bill that is false and is creating the problems that result in less protection and measures in this bill that actually hurt children. If you look at the Republican bill, the largest share of the welfare bill's food stamp savings would come from across-the-board cuts in food stamp benefit programs. A lot of my Republican colleagues talked about how there were a lot of people on welfare who were fraudulent, or how they wanted to end benefits for people failing to comply with work requirements. But actually if you look at this bill, only 2 percent of the food stamp savings in the bill, and the food stamps is the largest savings in the bill, only 2 percent of that food stamp savings come from provisions to reduce administrative costs, curbing fraud or ending benefits for people found to comply with work requirements. Most of the savings is achieved by just slashing the amount of money that goes to food stamp programs. So even people who legitimately need the food stamps, because they are working in many cases, will actually suffer losses in their benefits under the food stamp program. The other myth I think that was promulgated by the Republicans was this notion that, well, the welfare system is a failure because the poverty rate has climbed in the last few years under the existing welfare program. I guess the theory is that throwing money at the problem does not work. Well, the reality is that the reason why more and more people are sinking into poverty in this country is because the safety net is being cut. In other words, the food stamps, the cash assistance, the housing assistance that many of the poor individuals that need this type of assistance receive, in real dollars has actually decreased over the last 5 or 10 years. So the reality is that more and more people are going into poverty because we are not providing sufficient funding for them to eke through an existence, to have a healthy life, to have proper housing, to have enough money to take care of their children. So I honestly believe that the basic premise, if you will, of this Republican plan, which says that somehow we are going to be able to save money by making the kind of welfare reform that they propose, is a false premise, and one of the biggest problems with their bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because I do not believe it allows for sufficient amendments that would change this terrible Republican leadership bill. I do want to say, though, that I am pleased that the Castle-Tanner substitute is in order because I think that that does make things better, if you will, for the two major problems that I see with this Republican legislation. One is that it really does not do anything to get people to work or provide the resources so that the States can get people off welfare and get a job. Second, because this Republican legislation also is very tough on kids and basically takes away almost all the protections for children that exist in the current system, the Castle-Tanner substitute would at least provide sufficient or at least more resources to get people to work and, also, I think, protect that safety net for children. I was listening to what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] said about the need for a compassionate public policy, and that that is why this Republican bill has been brought forward, but I would say this does just the opposite. If we want to get people to work, if we want to protect kids in a situation where we are changing radically the nature of the welfare system, then we cannot move forward with this Republican bill. I wanted to mention two things, because I listened to what some of my colleagues said on the other side. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] talked about the fraud in the welfare system. He mentioned the crab legs. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] talked about people waiting in line who he did not think needed welfare. Well, do not give us these examples, which are a small percentage of the people that are on welfare. In addition to that, this Republican bill does not do anything to curb fraud or to end benefits for people who fail to comply with work requirements or to reduce administrative costs in the welfare program. The largest share of this Republican welfare bill's cuts or savings would come from across-the-board cuts in the food stamp benefit program. What that means is that the average person who gets food stamps now is not going to be able to continue to have a sufficient level of food.