Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. These is a big distinction between what the gentleman was citing and what we are talking about here today. We are talking about a crime against humanity, genocide. We are talking about a country that made a concerted effort to wipe out a people and a country that has refused to recognize that that occurred.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the only point I wanted to make very briefly is, as my colleagues know, in the same way that the German Government, which today of course, as my colleagues know, could hardly be seen as the successor to the Nazi regime, constantly makes reference and apologizes for what the Nazis did to the Jews and other people in Eastern Europe, and as a result we have a very cleansing effect, if my colleagues will, on the German people and on the German nation. We would like to see the Turkish Government do the same thing. They are the successor to the Ottoman government. Rather than every time we write to them or bring up the genocide, they are coming back to us and saying, and I will do it from my own experience, that it never occurred; that they would acknowledge that this happened in their history and go through this same cleansing process. So I think the example of the Nazi Holocaust means that they should acknowledge it, not that they should reject that it ever occurred. And I thank the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be a cosponsor of the Radanovich amendment. Again, as Mr. Radanovich mentioned, capping economic support fund aid to Turkey at $22 million, as this does, represents a cut of about 2 percent of the total U.S. military and economic assistance, approximately $3 million. We know that the government of Turkey has spent at least that amount annually in its Washington lobbying and public relations effort. I was on the floor just the other day talking about some aspect of that. One of the things they have been doing rather successfully, is basically donating money to major universities to establish chairs of Turkish studies. Then they use that oftentimes to influence what goes on at those universities. I was very concerned about that issue, particularly in my home State of New Jersey, because they established one of these chairs at Princeton University, one of the leading institutions of higher learning in the Nation. And yet, we have documented that some of the promotional efforts that have come out of that donation, have basically resulted in an effort to try to deny that the genocide ever took place. Rather than confront the historical record of the Armenian genocide, the Turkish Government has chosen to instead to ignore the documented evidence. This pattern of denial offends the memory of those who perished, contradicts the historical record in our own national archives, and helps lay the groundwork for those who would commit similar atrocities in the future. Our amendment provides a practical incentive for Turkey to join the international community in coming to terms with this tragic chapter in history. By acknowledging the Armenian genocide, Turkey will open the door to full diplomatic relations with Armenia. I do not want to go through the historical account of the genocide because I think that we should try to limit our time here. But I just wanted to say that to this day the government of Turkey maintains this policy of denying that the genocide against the Armenians ever took place. I, just to give you an example from my own experience, myself and Congressman Porter have on various occasions written to the Turkish embassy and talked about the genocide. And we get very curt responses suggesting that the genocide never took place, And yet the historical record is clear. There were no Nuremberg trials, and there has been no official atonement by the Turkish nation. And I think the only way that we can make this point and to try to persuade Turkey, which receives millions of dollars of U.S. aid, is to basically try to pass a resolution like this that makes them acknowledge that the genocide took place. I just want, again, for the sake of time, I just want to point out that there have been many Americans and world leaders who have continued to point to the genocide and the example of the Armenian genocide. Just to quote two of them here today, if I could, I wanted to mention a statement by President Reagan that was made on April 22, 1981. He said, Like the genocide of the Armenians before it and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it and like too many other such persecutions of too many other people, the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten. President Clinton said this year on the anniversary of the genocide, April 21, that he joins with Armenians around the world on this solemn day in commemorating the senseless deportations and massacres of 1.5 million Armenians that took place from 1915 to 1923 in the Ottoman Empire. The bottom line is that if we do not recognize that genocide takes place, it will happen again. We know that it happens over and over again historically. One of the most disgraceful things I think is when Adolf Hitler said, before he started the preparations for the Jewish Holocaust, he mentioned that no one remembered the Armenian genocide. Therefore, there was no reason why he could not proceed. We do not want this genocide to continue. The Turkish Government must recognize it. Once they do, I think relations between our countries will certainly be a lot better. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. PALLONE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that on this next amendment, the Radanovich amendment, if it were possible to have that unanimous consent request withdrawn. We just wanted to see how many speakers would be here. We will try to limit it to the 30 minutes, if possible, but since a lot of the Members who wanted to speak on the amendment were not necessarily aware that the time was limited and thought they would have 5 minutes, I would like to not limit it formally at this time, if the Chair won allow us that.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I am not sure, was it clear, are there any other nonlimitation amendments? I did not think there were.

Mr. PALLONE. The way the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] is phrased, we are not just talking about Turkey. We are talking about the general issue of whether or not a country should continue to receive United States aid if it forbids or blockades humanitarian assistance from going to another country that is a friend of ours. So I agree, if there was any other country that was doing this, then they should be stopped as well. So focusing on Turkey versus Armenia makes sense in the context of today, but this is a basic principle that I think should apply to all U.S. foreign policy. It does not matter whether it is Armenia or not.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out, I know there is a lot of conversation going back and forth with Turkey and its rule over the years with the United States and our military. But I think the bottom line is here talking about humanitarian aid. That is all we are saying. I rarely criticize the President, but I have to in this case. When President Clinton certified and said that he was going to waive the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which is essentially what this amendment was all about, he was essentially admitting that there is a blockade, that the blockade is taking place and that, for whatever national security interests, which I guess is what you were citing, we should allow that blockade to continue and not have the humanitarian aid come to Armenia. I think that is wrong. Regardless of the fact of whatever the national security interests are, however you view United States- Turkey relations, the bottom line is that there is absolutely no reason why Turkey should be allowed to continue this blockade of Armenia for humanitarian assistance. We are only talking about humanitarian assistance, whether they are going to get energy assistance, whether they are going to get food supplies. I think this principle applies in general. We are talking here about Armenia but it applies in general. Why should any country, a friend of the United States or whatever, continue to get assistance from our country if they do not allow humanitarian aid to go to another country? I think that is what this is all about.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Visclosky amendment. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is essentially to put enforcement teeth in a provision that is already part of the foreign operations bill: The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. Speaking in my capacity as the co-chairman of the Congressional Caucus on Armeniase oren Issues, I applaud the chairman and members of the subcommittee for once again, as they did last year, including this important provision which restricts U.S. aid to those countries blocking delivery of humanitarian aid to third countries. While this provision is not country-specific, it clearly applies to Turkey, which for more than 3 years has maintained a blockade of neighboring Armenia. While the people of Armenia are struggling to build democracy and reform their economy according to market principles, the blockade imposed along their border with Turkey disrupts the delivery of vitally needed humanitarian supplies. The Corridor Act provision was in last year's Foreign Ops bill, which finally became law earlier this year. Unfortunately, the current provision allows for a Presidential waiver and last month President Clinton exercised that waiver. I deeply regret that decision, and I joined with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and 27 other Members in sending a letter to the President protesting this decision. The amendment by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] would remove this waiver and I urge support to help enforce the intent of Congress. Not only do I disagree with the President's waiver on substantive and moral grounds. I am particularly dismayed with the procedural way in which the waiver was handled by the administration. We learned about the waiver almost by accident, through a statement made by Turkish Foreign Minister Emre Gonensay, who, speaking at a press conference on May 21, 1996, indicated that the national security waiver had been invoked. Subsequently, it was confirmed by officials at the State Department and the National Security Council that the waiver was invoked on May 16, 1996. I cannot understand why the Turkish Foreign Ministry was aware of this information before the Congress. Given the strong statement of congressional intent, we believe it would have been appropriate for the administration to have advised Members of Congress of its plans with regard to the waiver, and hope the administration will consult with Congress in the future. Furthermore, I am concerned that the language in the Presidential Determination contains no reference to the Turkish blockade of Armenia. Failure to at least mention the blockade in the context of the determination to waive the Corridor Act sends the disturbing signal that the United States is not concerned about the ongoing, illegal blockade of a small country striving to establish democracy and a market economy. I hope the administration will make a top priority of imploring the Turkish Government, the recipient of so much U.S. aid, to lift its blockade of Armenia and accept Armenia's offer to normalize relations without preconditions. This amendment will help make that happen. Mr. Chairman, supporters of this amendment bear no ill will to the Turkish people and we recognize the strategic importance of relations with Turkey. We are simply saying that maintaining good relations should not entail turning a blind eye to the outrageous actions committed by Turkey. Given the generosity the United States has shown toward Turkey, it is appropriate to attach conditions--particularly such a basic condition as allowing the delivery of aid to a neighbor in need. Such a condition should be a basic requirement for any recipient of U.S. aid. I think most of the American people would be shocked to know that such a provision is not already a requirement on the recipients of U.S. assistance. Armenia is a small, land-locked nation dependent on land corridors through neighboring countries for many basic goods. Armenia has been one of the most exemplary of the former Soviet republics in terms of moving toward a Western style political and economic system. The Armenian people respect and admire the United States. There are more than 1 million Americans of Armenian ancestry. The bonds between our countries are strong and enduring. But the people of Armenia face a humanitarian crisis which is not the result of any natural disaster but the deliberate policy of its neighbor to choke off access to needed goods from the outside world. We believe the exertion of U.S. leadership can play a major role in easing tensions and promoting greater cooperation among the nations of the Caucasus region. Enforcement of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act must be an important component of those efforts. I urge support for the Visclosky amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Speaking in my capacity as cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I am happy to note that once again the foreign operations bill includes an important provision known as the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act which restricts U.S. aid to those countries blocking deliveries of humanitarian aid to third countries. While this provision is not country-specific, it clearly applies to Turkey, which for more than 3 years has maintained a blockade of neighboring Armenia. The blockade imposed along the Armenian border with Turkey disrupts the delivery of vitally needed humanitarian supplies. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the current provision allows for a Presidential waiver, and last month President Clinton exercised that waiver. I deeply regret that decision and I have joined with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and 27 other Members in sending a letter to the President protesting this decision. Later today we will debate an amendment by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] that will remove that waiver, and I urge Members' support to help support the intent of Congress. Another provision is a provision in the legislation that fairly addresses the issue of United States aid to Azerbaijan, another neighbor of Armenia which maintains a blockade. Direct United States aid to Azerbaijan is prohibited through the efforts of my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. The legislation allows United States nongovernmental and private voluntary organizations to use the Azerbaijani Government facilities to distribute aid, while for the first time providing United States Government aid to the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabagh. This is an honorable agreement. I salute the subcommittee chairman, the ranking member, and other subcommittee members for their work on this provision and urge that there be no attempts to change the language of that provision. Mr. Speaker, I also support the limit on economic support fund assistance to Turkey and hope this provision will send a signal of disapproval over the Turkish blockade of Armenia, the occupation of Cyprus, and the campaign against the Kurdish people. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of an amendment with the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], that would withhold about 2 percent of total United States aid to Turkey, about $3 million, until the Turkish Government has joined the United States and the international community in acknowledging the atrocity committed against the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire and taken steps to honor the memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide. This amendment provides a practical incentive for Turkey to come to terms with this tragic chapter in its history. By acknowledging the Armenian genocide, Turkey will help to open the door to full diplomatic relations with Armenia, and I urge adoption of that amendment. On the negative side, Mr. Speaker, I believe the foreign operations bill does not provide sufficient funding for programs supporting the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. While in general I am concerned that the development assistance funding level, while a slight increase over fiscal 1996, is still below the administration's request, I understand that there may be an amendment brought forth that would further decrease U.S. aid funding. I would urge opposition to such an amendment. As an example of where U.S. aid development assistance is doing great work, I would cite India, the world's second most populous country, a democracy which just completed national elections. The development assistance program in India is supporting market-oriented economic growth, deregulation, privatization, and I would urge that we not cut into this program any further. I understand that the gentleman from Illinois, Dan Burton, plans to offer an amendment to the bill that will single out India by restricting American assistance. The Burton amendment is not a cutting amendment. It is strictly an attempt to stigmatize India. Given overall cuts in development assistance as well as budget and structure, the rule changes in aid, the India program may already be vulnerable to reductions. India has just completed a national election and a new government has been sworn in. Market-oriented economic reforms have been in place for 5 years and the USAID Program has aided in these provisions. It is imperative that we send the right message to India, the world's largest democracy. Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] would damage United States-India relations at a time when we should be drawing closer, not drifting apart, as the world's two largest democracies. I would urge opposition to that Burton amendment. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and I appreciate the fact that we are dealing with an open rule on such an important bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, my colleague from Ohio, is once again trying to use the Medicare trustees report which comes out today as justification for the large cuts in Medicare that will be used by the Republican leadership to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. This trustees report is out again, it comes out every year, and what it says to us is that we need to do something, we need to make some changes in the Medicare Program, but the Democrats have already proposed that. We have already voted on the President's budget, which most Republicans oppose, which would basically make some cuts in Medicare but preserve the program. The problem is that the Republican proposal is to change radically Medicare, to make it so you do not have a choice of doctor, to increase out-of-pocket costs with overcharges and also essentially forcing senior citizens into managed care, into HMO's. We do not need the radical changes in Medicare that the Republicans are proposing. We only need to make some minor adjustments to make sure that the trust fund remains solvent. But that can be done with the Democratic proposal without the radical changes in Medicare that the Republican leadership is proposing.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Medicare trustees are going to issue their annual report to Congress and to the American people, and we already know that the Republican leadership is going to take advantage of this to try to suggest that the trustees' report justifies their severe and extreme changes in the Medicare Program for senior citizens. I would suggest that the Democrats in the House of Representatives last year, with an amendment that was brought forward by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] and this year in the budget that was proposed by the President that we voted on, suggested minor changes or cuts, if you will, in the Medicare Program that would keep the Medicare Program solvent well into the next century. The extreme cuts and changes in Medicare that the Republicans are proposing are not needed. The Medicare trustees' report should not be an excuse to justify, if you will, the changes that the Republican leadership is proposed in Medicare. Rather, we should be getting together to make those minor cuts, if you will, to save the program and keep it solvent on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this weekend on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' House Speaker Newt Gingrich went on the attack on Medicare once again, and now he claims that the President and the Democrats in Congress are deliberately misleading the American people about his plan; that is, the Republican plan, so-called plan to save Medicare. I would like to tell my colleagues that nothing could be further from the truth. Last year the American people overwhelmingly rejected the Republican plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare to pay for tax breaks primarily for the wealthy, and the Speaker knows the public opinion is not on his side, so he is trying to confuse the American people by making extreme attacks on Democrats' integrity rather than addressing the Medicare issue correctly. I guess we should not be surprised because it was Speaker Gingrich who last year said it was his goal to see Medicare, and I quote, ``wither on the vine.'' The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that the Republicans want to use the budget, this budget that they passed a few weeks ago and is now in conference with the Senate, as the vehicle for transforming Medicare in a very radical way. My position is, and I believe it is that of most Democrats, if changes in Medicare are to come they should not be made in the context of the budget, they should not be a vehicle to make cuts in Medicare that would be used for other priorities, such as tax breaks for the wealthy or increased defense spending or whatever other initiatives the Republicans plan for the budget. Now, we know this Wednesday the Medicare trustees are going to come out with their annual report and already we are hearing that the Speaker and the Republican leadership are going to use this report, which will show again that Medicare does need some changes in order for it not to become insolvent 5 or 6 years from now, but the bottom line is that the Republican leadership plan to save Medicare is not an effort to make some adjustments in Medicare so that it remains solvent and so that the money is available to continue the program as it currently exists. Rather, they want to make major radical structural changes in the Medicare program that will reduce the quality of care, will reduce senior's ability to choose their own doctors or hospitals and basically force most senior citizens in either managed care programs where they do not have choices or alternatively make them pay more out of pocket for the services that they get. I wanted to point out in the time I have remaining here what I would call a number of key issues that I think reveal the true colors of the Gingrich-Dole Medicare plan. First, the Republican leadership claims that Medicare is going broke and they are saving it. Well, last year they knew they were cutting Medicare before the Medicare trustees' report came out. The trustees' report was used and will be used again this year to masquerade their true motives, which is to cut Medicare for tax cuts for the wealthy. Second, it is likely that the Medicare trustees will report that the part A trust fund will become insolvent, they are claiming, I think, we expect the report to say that the insolvency projection is about 5 years from now. Well, Democrats are interested in shoring up the Medicare trust fund and have voted for plans that achieve this goal. President Clinton has proposed a plan that will extend the life of the Medicare program, if you will, for at least another 10 years. So this notion that somehow the Republicans are saving Medicare is simply false. The Democrats have put forward proposals that would save Medicare and prevent solvency but not make basic structural changes in the Medicare program. Third, the GOP claim they are merely slowing the rate of growth of Medicare with their drastic cuts. Well, let us be honest about it. When the Gingrich-Dole rate of growth does not keep pace with the increasing medical costs, then seniors will either pay more or see reduced services and second class health care. This was Speaker Gingrich's main point over the weekend on ``Meet the Press.'' He claimed, oh, we are just slowing the growth of Medicare, we are not making cuts. Well, if the growth does not keep up with inflation how in the world are average senior citizens going to get quality care or the same level of services they get now? Fourth, the GOP claims the Gingrich-Dole Medicare plan offers choices. In fact, they are taking away senior choices. Their plan will co-op senior citizens into managed care plans or HMO's, forcing them to give up their choice of doctors. And lastly, I wanted to mention, Mr. Speaker, how the Gingrich-Dole plan differs from the Democratic alternatives. In addition to the steep cuts, the Gingrich-Dole plan makes radical structural changes to Medicare. For instance, it calls for steeper cuts to hospitals, compounded with extreme Medicaid cuts, and hospitals will simply close. Additionally, the Gingrich-Dole plan will allow doctors remaining in the traditional Medicare to charge seniors more in out-of-pockets costs. The protection existing now when you go to the doctor, he cannot charge you more than 15 percent. That is gone. Now they can charge whatever they want. And, last, concerning the controversial medical accounts, the MSA's, or I call them the wealthy-healthy accounts, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found any plan to incorporate the wealthy- healthy accounts will actually hasten Medicare's insolvency. It will cost the trustees over $3 billion. That is certainly no way to save Medicare.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman makes a very good point, and I think a lot of people do not realize that whether it is rural areas, or suburban areas, or urban areas, my district is mostly suburban, but the majority of the hospitals are more than 50 percent Medicare-Medicaid dependent in my area, and so when you talk about cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, even in a suburban district like that I represent, you are talking about most of the income that these hospitals have. They will not be able to continue to operate with the level of cuts that the Republicans have proposed. And they are trying to say that they are doing this in order to save Medicare. In reality what they are really doing is using Medicare as the focal point of their budget in order to achieve, you know, tax breaks, and to deal with their budget, they are cutting, making these massive cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, and the result is that the hospitals in many areas will close, not only in rural areas, but even in some suburban areas.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and just point out again, you know, I know that our colleagues on the other side always say, well, people will have choice, they do not have to go into managed care. But the reality is the way the system is set up by the Republican leadership, people are forced into managed care. You have a rate differential, which means basically that doctors will get reimbursed more or less depending on which system seniors opt for, and then you have this balanced billing. So essentially what happens is seniors find that since they have to spend a lot more money out of pocket to pay the doctor, if they stay in the traditional system where they can choose their own doctor, they are literally forced into the managed care system because under that system they do not have to pay the extra money out of pocket to their doctor. So when the Republicans say, oh, you have a choice, the reality is you do not have a choice. You are forced into managed care. Otherwise you have to stay in a system where the cost and how much you have to pay out of pocket just gets to be more and more. And so in reality you do not have a choice. You lose your choice of doctor and also maybe your choice of hospital in a lot of cases, and I think that is important to point out. I yield now to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, who has done so much on this Medicare issue and made the point so well on it.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to begin this special order tonight by pointing out that this evening, when we had the Democratic motion to instruct on the budget, that a major point that was being made in that motion to instruct is that the budget resolution that was adopted here in the House that is put forward by the Republican leadership basically denies basic protection on health care for seniors. Essentially what we have in this budget resolution are major attacks on the Medicare Program, and also on the Medicaid Program. As a result, in the motion to instruct that was put forward by the Democrats this evening, we were trying to seek to retain current protections under the law against excessive Medicare charges by doctors and hospitals to preserve Federal nursing home standards and also to make sure that we do not have a recurrence of the spousal impoverishment and liens on homes that occurred before protections were put into place for the Medicaid Program, again to protect seniors. Part of this motion to instruct was for us as Democrats to make the point that this Republican budget, which we will be considering again probably in conference within the next couple of weeks, essentially takes us down the same path that we were on last year with regard to fiscal priorities, especially with regard to our Nation's seniors. May is Older Americans Month, and I want to emphasize that this Republican budget truly reflects the hurt, if you will, that the Republican leadership seeks to implement on seniors, particularly on the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. The Republican Medicare plan will result in seniors paying more out of their own pockets for substandard care while cutting over $160 billion to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. More important than these steep cuts are the extreme structural change that the Republican leadership is trying to impose on seniors. Their plan eliminates the choice of doctors and hospitals that seniors now enjoy by basically forcing them into managed care. This Republican plan will allow doctors to charge seniors extra money beyond the expenses that Medicare will cover. This means that seniors will have to pay doctors a lot more money out of their own pocket. To compound all of this, the cuts that the Republicans are imposing will force many hospitals to close. The funding that hospitals, home health care service, skilled nursing facilities receive will be sharply reduced. The bottom line is that with that reduced resource, many seniors will suffer. I have to say once again that I believe very strongly that Medicare should not even be discussed in the context of the budget resolution. If we are looking to improve Medicare, we should increase preventive services and cut the waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare Program. These are the types of things that will ensure Medicare's future while providing quality health care for our Nation's seniors. Instead, the Republican leadership is essentially going down a path of destroying Medicare and also Medicaid. I wanted to just point out again, and I know I have a number of speakers here tonight who want to join in this special order, and I would like to yield some time to them. But essentially we went through the same process in 1995 last year with the Republican leadership in their budget trying to essentially change both the Medicare and the Medicaid Programs in very negative ways. As Democrats, we pointed out that last year, essentially what we tried to do was to prevent the Republicans from doubling Medicare part B premiums, eliminating doctor choice, cutting Medicare premium assistance for low-income seniors, repealing Federal nursing home quality standards, putting homes and family farms of elderly couples at risk for nursing home care. And also the Republicans were trying to force adult children to be financially liable for their parents' nursing home bills. Mr. Speaker, we were very successful as Democrats in essentially putting to rest these changes that the Republicans were trying to make last year in the Medicare program. We have the same phenomenon again this year. The budget that was already adopted here, the Republican leadership that was adopted already on the floor and which will come up again in a few weeks in conference before it finally is adopted by both the House and the Senate Republican leadership, still plans to eliminate doctor and hospital choice by forcing seniors into Medicare managed care plans. It also allows doctors to charge extra out-of- pocket costs to seniors who remain in medicare fee-for-service, severely cuts Medicare and Medicaid hospital funding, forcing many hospitals to close their doors on seniors, eliminates coverage guarantees for over 4 million elderly Americans who need nursing home care, and also further erodes Medicare's solvency by creating wealthy healthy plans, leaving many seniors with higher costs and less care. We have the same thing again, which is Medicare cuts to pay for tax care to pay for tax breaks for wealthy Americans, and a continued decline in the quality of service and the ability of our senior citizens to obtain quality Medicare programs and forcing them to pay more out of their own pockets. So the record, the Republican leadership record is the same. It is just the same old plan that we dealt with last year that we are going to have rehashed again here in the House in 1996. With that, I would like to introduce and yield some time now to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].

Mr. PALLONE. Exactly. Thank you. I like to yield now to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], our minority whip.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I think, if the gentleman will yield back, the problem is that they are trying to squeeze all of this money out of the budget through the Medicare and the Medicaid programs, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] makes the point that essentially what is happening here is they are turning over, if you will, the Medicaid program in a block grant to the States and letting the States essentially do what they want, whether that means no nursing home standards or whatever, in order to try to save money, to squeeze money out of Medicaid again primarily to pay for these tax breaks for the wealthy. That is what motivates this. It is all budget driven. And I want to thank the gentleman for his statements, and I would like to yield now to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership budget is being negotiated now between the two houses and we may have a motion to go to conference within the next day or so. I just wanted to point out once again that this budget essentially cuts Medicare and Medicaid in order to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans. It is the same old thing that we had last year in 1995. Once again Medicare and Medicaid are on the chopping block and seniors are going to be given less choices and they will be pushed into managed care, which means they will not have the choice of doctors or in many cases even the choice of hospitals. And once again they are going to have to pay more, because the balanced billing provisions, the protections that exist right now that do not allow doctors to charge more or significantly more than 15 percent to their Medicare patients will be out the window. If you stay in the traditional fee-for-service system where you have your own choice of doctor or your own choice of hospital, you could be charged extra, really unlimited amounts, under the provisions that the Republican leadership have placed into this budget. Also, what they are doing with the medical savings accounts is they are making it so that seniors who opt for a medical savings account, which is a catastrophic policy essentially, will not have the guarantee of most of the Medicare benefits. For the first time in the history of the Medicare program, some senior citizens will have the guarantee of all their Medicare benefits and others will not because they opt for catastrophic coverage and will not necessarily know what they are getting into. So beware, seniors, of what the Republicans are doing in this budget.