Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 260. I also rise in opposition to the manner in which this controversial measure is being brought before the House. H.R. 260 would set up a mechanism for restructuring portions of the National Park System and includes provisions that would allow an Interior Secretary or an unelected commission to recommend the closure of units of the Park System. I oppose H.R. 260 for a number of reasons, but primarily because I disagree with a fundamental premise of the bill. H.R. 260 rests upon the presumption that the Park System is overextended and that the only way to help the system is to restructure and strategically downsize it. Restructuring and downsizing are terms we often hear these days in Congress, but we are not talking about military bases here. What we are debating is the fate of one of our Nation's greatest treasures. This is cultural, historical, and natural resource preservation we are talking about. As Mr. Richardson said in his dissenting views on H.R. 260, no one outside the beltway is calling or writing to say we have too many parks. In fact, the contrary is true in my State. I have constituents and elected officials writing me all the time to try to get new areas designated as parks or refuges or to get existing parks expanded. And despite the rhetoric we hear in this body, it is not easy to get that done; it takes years of work. Of course, even if we except the premise that we need to trim the Park System, the deck has already been stacked in favor of some units and against others. The legislation exempts from consideration for termination 54--mainly Western--national parks. And what was the scientific policy basis for leaving these parks out? I do not know. If this is a fair process this bill is establishing, and these parks are so superior, would those parks not be protected anyway? Why aren't important parks like the Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall, and the Washington Monument protected from scrutiny? Why aren't Gateway and Sandy Hook--which is in my district--protected? Perhaps it is because these are urban units which, in addition to being significant cultural, historical, and natural areas, provide education and recreation to lower income people who cannot afford to travel to Colorado or California to take advantage of the Park System their tax dollars support. Or maybe it is merely because some in this body have a very narrow and elitist view of the Park System. Now, I know that supporters of this bill will say it is not a closure bill; that it is not a BRAC for the parks. But I would just like to draw my colleagues' attention to a bill that those same people supported last Congress, H.R. 1508. Section 105 of that bill, sponsored by Mr. Hefley, was entitled ``Termination of National Park Service management at nonessential National Park [[Page H 9088]] System areas.'' Now today's bill may be a so-called compromise bill, but it is clear what the intent is behind it. I am now a member of the Resources Committee--and I have watched some of my colleagues on that committee oppose parkland acquisition even though it was proposed by a Republican member. I have even seen ``Dear Colleague'' letters and a newspaper op-ed entitled ``Do We Need All These Parks?'' where a park in my district is singled out. But those same people seem to be saying ``trust us, we really don't want to get rid of the park system.'' I am sorry, but I just cannot take that on faith. I could go on about my objections to this legislation, but I want to talk a bit about the way in which this bill is being considered. On June 12, Bill Richardson, the ranking Democrat on the National Parks Subcommittee--which has jurisdiction over this legislation--sent a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to each and every Member of the House. In that letter he said that he opposed H.R. 260. But more importantly he said the following: ``When the House considers H.R. 260, I will offer amendments * * * .'' I told the ranking subcommittee member that I supported him and that I, too, might want to offer amendments. Other Members did the same. Then, on Friday of last week, I found out that the National Park System Reform Act was coming before the House under suspension of the rules--a format that would prohibit all of us from offering the amendments we said we wanted considered. I did not believe it. I actually asked my staff to call the Democratic Cloakroom to make sure this was actually H.R. 260 we were bringing up. You see, I was under the impression that the Suspension Calendar is only for noncontroversial items, not legislation that is opposed by the National Parks and Conservation Association. It is not for legislation that is so controversial that the Secretary of the Interior came all the way to my district to tell me and my constituents that he opposed it. And it is certainly not meant for legislation that is opposed by the ranking member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction. Yet here we are. We have not suspended the rules, what we have suspended is the right of my constituents and others to dissent. Maybe you do not agree with my point of view on the bill's substance. Or maybe you do. However, I hope that you support the rights of myself, my friend from New Mexico, and others who want to offer amendments to this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Park System and for the Democratic system by voting ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maryland for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am here this afternoon to urge all of my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 42, that calls for the demilitarization of the island nation of Cyprus. Now in its 21st year, the illegal occupation of Cyprus by Turkey--who controls over one-third of the territory of this formerly sovereign nation with a heavily armed force of over 30,000--is an international dilemma that demands the highest degree of American attention and perseverance. Having watched with extreme pride the tireless efforts of American diplomats as they have tried to bring peace to Bosnia over the last few weeks, I want to remind all my colleagues that the issues we are fighting for in Bosnia are very much the same as those the United States needs to stand for with respect to Cyprus. Just as the international community has condemned the Serb's brutal and shocking campaign of territorial conquest, so to has it long been in opposition to Turkey's defiant disrespect for Cyprus' sovereignty. Mr. Speaker, the international community has demanded that the Turks allow the Cypriot people to live as a free and independent people in various forms over the years. Most recently, in July of [[Page H 9043]] last year the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 939, which mandated that any settlement of the Cyprus issue ``must be based on a state of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded.'' Among other things, House Concurrent Resolution 42 ``insists that all parties to the dispute regarding Cyprus agree to seek a solution based upon the relevant United Nations resolutions,'' including Resolution 939. It does so, moreover, by calling for the complete demilitarization of an island that the Secretary General of the United Nations has described as ``one of the most highly militarized areas in the world.'' Mr. Speaker, if any one can tell me why it is not a good idea to demilitarize an island that for years has brought instability to the entire region surrounding it, I would love to hear the explanation. This gesture of goodwill, which was made last year by the Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides, represents a tremendous chance to facilitate a peaceful resolution to a highly volatile situation. A Turkish refusal to act on this proposal can only be read as an unwavering determination by Turkey to ignore the rule of law. The Turks, however, should know that should they refuse to move on this situation, their determination will be met with an equal resolve by the United States to do whatever it takes to once again see a free and independent Cyprus. As the House's decision earlier this year to cut United States aid to Turkey illustrates, we mean business when we say we want to see this issue resolved consistent with respect for international law. I would urge my colleagues to demonstrate this once again by supporting House Concurrent Resolution 42.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the Democratic leadership has been consulted and we have no objection to these requests. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection. [[Page H 9116]]

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to stop by tonight when I listened to what you were all saying, because I think it is really crucial. We in New Jersey once again on Friday had a Medicare forum, which was attended by a number of the Democratic Congressmen, specifically myself and my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews]. And it was amazing to me how more confused senior citizens become every day because of the manner in which the Republican leadership is essentially gradually leaking out information about what they might have in mind for these Medicare cuts and these significant changes in Medicare. The overwhelming feeling was exactly what you have on that placard up there: The GOP Medicare plan, you pay more and you get less. People are beginning to understand, I think, that essentially what this is, is nothing but budget driven, a way to try to take a lot of money out of the Medicare program and provide less services for senior citizens. But I agree with you, I heard what you said about the article that was in the Washington Times today, and the criticism that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and others are giving them. I commend the gentleman from Ohio for doing that, because it is absolutely the truth: We really do not have a plan here. The way the plan has been set up already, there is absolutely no way that this level of cuts can be implemented based on the details they have given us. The problem I see here is this is going to be a total stealth effort. By next Thursday or whenever, we are going to get a few more details. At the time when we actually vote on this, we are still not going to know exactly what it will mean for senior citizens. All we will know is the Medicare program cannot absorb this level of cuts without providing less services and costing significantly more dollars out of pocket. I have to tell you, one of the things I disagreed with in the Washington Times article is where it suggested that somehow seniors were going to be able to afford those part B premium increases. The seniors I met with in Gloucester Township, NJ on Friday with Congressman Andrews, they were complaining about the level of those premium increases. We are talking about the doubling of the part B premium in the next 7 years the way I understand it. You are talking about senior citizens in many cases that cannot afford any kind of increase at all. Their budget is to the point where they budget every dollar on a monthly basis. To talk to them about doubling the amount of money that they have to pay out of pocket for part B to pay for the doctor bills is absolutely outrageous. The other thing I have to address, and I know you have already said it, is the providers. The hospitals are scared to death, because the way this huge hole, if you will, has been created here, what the Republicans are saying is that wait a few years and we will see how this works out. If it does not, we will have to start making more significant cuts. The hospitals are saying that any significant cuts, even the ones they are experiencing now, are causing many of them to close or downsize or not provide the community services or the clinical services that they provided in the past in various communities. They cannot absorb this level of cuts. There is no way for the Republicans to implement this level of cuts in Medicare without severe effects on the hospitals, on the quality of care, and also [[Page H 9131]] on senior citizens having to pay more out of pocket. It is incumbent upon us, I know that is what you are doing, the gentleman from Texas, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the gentleman from California, we have to keep making the point that we have to let the public in to see what is going on here. We cannot let 1 day of hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means be the only contribution that the public ever sees before we vote only this plan. We have to continue to press, as I know we will, that we have to have the full plan and we have to have several weeks, if not at least a month, to look it over, to bring in the senior citizens, to bring in the hospitals, to bring in the people that are going to be directly impacted by this, so we know what the Republicans have in mind. It is still remarkably something that we do not have the details about, and we cannot plan about. But what we know, we know is going to have a devastating effect because we cannot absorb, the program cannot absorb that level of cuts. I want to commend the two of you again for putting together this special order.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. No, Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened this morning to what the Speaker said about the Medicare issue. I was very upset because of this suggestion that somehow this is all politics, and I assure you it is not about politics. If you talk to seniors in my district, they are very concerned because they do not have the extra money to spend for an increased premium in Medicare part B. They are concerned because they have had the same doctor or they have been able to go to a hospital that is close by for a number of years, and now all of a sudden they are hearing that they may have to go into an HMO or a managed care system where they will not have the choice of the doctor that they have had for years or the hospital that is close by. They cannot afford it. They have a budget, some of them, where $10 or $15 a month makes all the difference in the world because that is all they have to spend after they have figures out their budget for a month, and whether we talk about a $7 increase or a $30 increase or a $50 increase in Medicare part B, they cannot afford that difference, because they simply do not have the money on the fixed income they are living on. I also have to tell you about the hospitals and providers.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today the American public was expected to receive the details of the Republicans' plan to slash Medicare, but the Republicans seems to be delaying further, and really, we do not know when the specific plans are going to be released. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I was outraged to find out how few details we were actually given in the document that was presented today by the Republican leadership. I have a copy of it here, the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995. We do know that we are talking about cutting $270 billion out of Medicare, and we know that that is going to have a devastating impact on senior citizens, because it is the largest Medicare cut in the history of this country, but to this day and at this hour, with only, I think, about a week left before there is supposed to be a 1-day hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means on the Medicare changes, we still do not have the details of the plan. I think it is really unfortunate, because the seniors that I know that are in my district are demanding to know how this cut is going to affect them. They are not buying into this Republican smokescreen about reforming Medicare. The fact of the matter is that Medicare is not broke, it has worked very well for the last 30 years in providing health care and good quality health care for most senior citizens, and all that we really have is a Republican plan to essentially take $270 billion out of the Medicare program to finance largely a tax cut for the wealthier Americans. I do not think it is fair. I do not think it is fair that the senior citizens of this country should have to take such a large brunt, if you will, of the effort to provide a tax cut, or of the effort to provide deficit reduction. One of the bases that the Republicans are using for saying that this large cut is necessary is that they claim that within 7 years Medicare will be insolvent. They base that on a trustees' report that came out this year, and we get trustees' reports from Medicare on an annual basis. What they fail to point out is that historically there has not been as much as 7 years outlays, if you will, for Medicare funding. Oftentimes it has only been 1 or 2 years before Medicare is insolvent. The reason for that is because this Congress traditionally did not want to leave a lot of money available for Medicare in future years because of the fear that it would be raided by provides, and that hospitals or doctors or other health care providers would say to themselves ``Gee, there is this large pot of money out there, so we had just better charge more for our services.'' There is no reason in the world to think that because for 7 years we have enough money to pay for Medicare services and for health care for seniors, that somehow that means that the system needs to be radically changed. It does not. They are only proposing this cut, this huge cut, in Medicare because they want to use it to pay for a tax cut, again, mostly for well-to-do Americans. This plan that was released today by the Republican leadership, and it is not a plan, it unfortunately does not provide much information at all; it does not tell us how this $270 billion is going to be implemented, this cut, cut it does have some pretty scary things in it which I would like to relate, if I could, during my time here this evening. First of all, with regard to the part B premium, which is the part of the Medicare Program that pays for doctors' bills, essentially, the one that seniors now basically voluntarily contribute to out of their pocket, but of course most seniors use it in order to finance their payments for doctors, for their physicians, the part B premium essentially [[Page H 8945]] under this proposed plan would increase to about $93 per person by the end of the 7 years in 2002. Earlier this week I think it was, I think it was on Sunday, the Speaker said that seniors would have to pay $7 more per month for the part B premium, which translates into $84 more per year for part B for their doctor's services. He said that as if that was a glorious thing, that they were only going to have to pay this extra $7 a month or $84 a year. I would like to mention first of all that many seniors are struggling with what they currently pay for their part B premium and really cannot afford to spend another $7 a month. They are on fixed incomes, they do not have anywhere else to go. I talk to people on a regular basis when I am back in my district who say, ``Gee, I've budgeted for the month and I've only budgeted with some play of $5,'' so if you talk about a $7 increase, that is a lot. However, after making that statement on Sunday about the $7 increase, the Speaker came back on Tuesday and said that it was going to be about $32 per month, or $384 per year, in effect doubling the seniors Medicare part B premiums. Well, if we are talking about $32 more per month, and I think it is probably going to be even more than that when we finally get the figures, we are essentially talking about doubling the amount that seniors have to pay out of pocket just for part B, just for their doctor's services. Some people may say again, ``Well, gee, that doesn't seem like a lot of money,'' but if you are a senior citizen, many of whom make $8,000, $9,000 a year, the majority of whom probably could not afford that $32 a month, and keep in mind that this doubling of their premium is only happening in order to finance a tax cut, because if we look at the amount of money, the $270 billion that is being taken out of Medicare, you could just put that right next to the $245 billion in tax cuts that are being proposed and see how they almost translate directly. The other thing that was mentioned again in this very skimpy outline which does not really tell us how they are going to achieve this $270 billion in savings is what I call means testing--basically an income- related proposal whereby if you are above a certain income, either for a single person or for a married couple, that you would increasingly, depending upon your income, have to pay more for your part B premium to the point where at a certain income level, you would pay for the whole thing, essentially phasing out part B for some individuals. I think although some may say, ``Well, what's the difference if some people who are in the higher income categories have to pay for the whole cost of their Medicare premium? Why should I worry about that? I don't care. They've got a lot of money. What is it to me?'' I maintain that that is totally wrong. A contract was made 30 years ago when Medicare was passed in this Congress and signed by the President which said that if over the years while you were working you paid into Medicare, that when you retired, when you got to be the age of 65, that Medicare was going to be available for you. To suggest that people at a certain income level should have to pay almost 100 percent of the cost of their premium I think is basically breaking the contract that was made when Medicare was passed 30 years ago. I would also point out that we already have means testing when you pay into Medicare. In other words, you have been paying into Medicare over the years based on your income. So if your income is higher, you have been paying more. All of a sudden now we are going to have another means test when you try to take advantage--and you are over 65--of the Medicare Program. It is also wrong because we are going down the slippery slope here now. We start means testing Medicare and maybe under the Republican proposal I think it is $75,000 a year where you start having to pay extra and ultimately it gets phased out completely and you have to pay the whole cost. Well, today it is $75,000, that is budget driven. But in this Congress--and I have seen it happen before--tomorrow, next year, it will be $50,000, year after that, it will be $40,000, $35,000, eventually for budget reasons you will see that that amount will be reduced and reduced and reduced and more and more senior citizens will end up having to pay more and more money to pay for their Medicare and to pay for their health care program. The other thing that is in this document which is also very interesting, my biggest concern really, other than the additional cost that seniors are going to have to pay under this Republican plan when we finally get it, is that a lot of senior citizens are going to be forced into HMO's or managed care. Right now if a senior citizen has a doctor or goes to a certain hospital because it is in the vicinity of where they live, Medicare guarantees that that hospital or that physician will be reimbursed. It is called a fee-for-service plan. They choose the physician, they choose the hospital, and Medicare reimburses most of the cost. But what I believe is going to happen under this plan, and again for budgetary money reasons in order to finance this tax cut, is that more and more seniors are going to be forced into HMO's where they cannot choose their doctor or they cannot choose the hospital that may be close to them, and they have to go into a managed care plan or an HMO where those choices are made by others. That is a very terrible thing for a lot of senior citizens, first of all because a lot of them have used the same physician for years and they are confident that that physician can care for them. Also, many of them live close to a hospital that they like and they do not want to have to go to a hospital that is 15 or 20 minute or maybe even an hour, who knows how far away if they are living in a rural area. Well, in this plan, again it is not clear what is in this plan, but in this plan, the suggestion is that there will be fixed dollar payments to HMO's. In other words, that if they choose to opt for an HMO or a managed care system, then the Government will pay a flat amount to that HMO or to that managed care system. It is not at all clear whether or not that HMO can charge more to the senior for a better, more comprehensive health care plan. It is almost similar to the voucher. The Republican document does not suggest that they are moving to a voucher system. But if they, in fact, give a flat rate to the HMO and then say that the HMO has to take what the Government gives them, and the HMO says, ``that is not enough to pay for the cost of the traditional care that we provide, so we are going to have to provide less quality care or reduce the amount of doctors, whoever participates, but if you pay an extra $1,000 or if you pay an extra $1,500 a year, we will give you a better plan,'' then in effect we have created a situation where the seniors have to pay money out of pocket to get a better traditional quality health care plan that they are used to. Again, it is not clear what exactly the Republicans have in mind. Hopefully, at some point over the next few weeks we will get some more details about exactly what this means. The other thing that is in this document that is a very dangerous precedent, which again is likely to force many low-income senior citizens into HMO's or managed care systems where they do not have a choice of doctor or hospital, is that the proposal does away with Medicaid paying for supplemental insurance. A lot of senior citizens have what they call MediGap. Medicaid pays the MediGap so that they do not have to pay out of pocket for the extra coverage that they get under MediGap because Medicare does not pay for that coverage. Seniors are not going to be allowed to use their Medicaid to pay for that supplemental health insurance coverage for items that are not covered by Medicare. What that means is that low-income people will be forced into HOMO's, low-income seniors, because they will not be able to pay that extra MediGap insurance in order to continue with a fee- for-service system where they choose their own doctor or their own hospital. They will literally be forced into an HMO or a managed care system, without a choice of physicians or choice of hospital, because [[Page H 8946]] there is no one to make up for that premium for the supplemental insurance. There are a lot of very sinister ways, I believe, when we finally get the details of this plan where I think it is going to be increasingly evident that many seniors, if not all, who do not have extra money are going to be forced into an HMO or a managed care system where they do not have a choice of their physician or for the hospital that they want. Again, and I have to stress that over and over again, the plan or the outline that was presented today by the Speaker and by the Republican leadership talks about $270 billion in cuts but does not tell us where those cuts are going to come from. We do not know whether the majority of it is going to come from reduced payments to health care providers like the hospitals or the doctors. We know that probably about $80 billion is going to come from these increased premiums that I talked about before for Medicare part B, which will essentially double the premiums that seniors are going to have to pay for their physician's care. But we do not know where the rest of the moneys come from, the other $200 billion or so. Is it going to come from reduced payments to hospitals and to physicians? If that is the case, we are going to see a number of things happen. If you cut into the amount of the payments that are made to the hospitals or the physicians, you are going to see a lot of physicians who will not take Medicare patients anymore, and so access to doctors is going to be limited, and you are going to see a lot of hospitals that are either going to close because they depend too much on Medicare to finance their operations or simply cut back on services in various ways. They can cut back by not providing certain community services, by not providing certain equipment. In my own district, we went during the August break to Monmouth Medical Center which is in my hometown of Long Branch. They depend on Medicare for the majority of their revenue. If they have a significant decrease in the amount of money that they are reimbursed for Medicare payments, they are probably going to have to cut back on staff, cut back on community services, cut back on clinics, cut back on all types of things. Some of the hospitals are in such a critical situation in New Jersey, we have identified, I think, through the New Jersey Hospital Association about 76 hospitals that are put on a critical list, they are so dependent on Medicare and Medicaid payments that if the amount that they got is reduced significantly, some of them will definitely close and we will see a situation where people who have traditionally relied on a local hospital will not even be able to find the hospital because it will not be there anymore and they are going to have to go elsewhere. Even if you take this $270 billion cut and you subtract the $80 billion that is going to be paid for on the backs of seniors because they are doubling their part B premiums, and even if you took, say, another 100 or 200, I do not know how many billion in reducing the amount of payments that go to hospitals and the physicians, there is still about a $90 billion what I call black hole that is left totally undecided in this plan, because essentially what the plan says is that we will figure out between now and 2002 whether whatever we come up with works in terms of saving money and if it does not, they we will just do some sort of across-the- board cut, and that will probably mean increased co-payments, deductibles, even less provider fees, whatever. Even though they suggest that they are not going to increase copayments and are not going to increase deductibles, the bottom line is that with this huge black hole that is not financed in any way as part of this plan, I have no doubt that they will be forced ultimately to come up with increased deductibles or copayments as a way of trying to finance this overall program. I guess the saddest thing for me is that all this is happening so quickly and without any input from the public. Back in April when the Republican budget was adopted in this House and in the Senate, we were told that Medicare was going to be slashed by $270 billion and that was going to be used either for deficit reduction or for the tax cut. April, May, June, July, August, it is now September, I do not know how many months that is, 4 or 5 months later, we still have no plan. Yet next Thursday in the Committee on Ways and Means or soon thereafter there is going to be just one day of hearings on whatever plan we finally get, one day for the American people and for Congress and for all the people that are concerned about the health care delivery system to review whatever plan we finally get between now and that 1 day when those hearings are held in the Committee on Ways and Means. It is totally unjustifiable for the Republican leadership to come forward with this stealth plan, after talking about these cuts now for 5 or 6 months, to come up with the implementation at the last minute and expect the public and the Congress to digest it and vote on it in 1 day with such a little period of time to review what this is all about. I think that that is the biggest, the cruelest hoax, if you will, that is to be placed out in this House and on the American people. This is such an important program that affects senior citizens and all those that depend upon senior citizens. Remember, it is not just seniors, but all their dependents that would have to help them pay for the extra care or care for them if they are not able to get care. Everyone in this country is going to be impacted by this program. Yet, we are talking about this plan coming out possibly within the next week with 1 day of hearings and a quick vote in committee and this House thereafter. If the Republicans ever reveal their plan, I have no doubt that the American people should be able to analyze what the Republicans are going to do to them. Instead, the Republicans are holding secret meetings without senior citizen input. Last year, they criticized President Clinton's health care plan because they said he was holding closed-door meetings. But at least President Clinton's plan was made public for over a year and we had the opportunity to analyze it. We are not going to have the opportunity to analyze this one. I waited this morning. I listened to what the Speaker said on CNN. I got a copy of what was put out by the leadership, and it still does not tell me how they are going to implement this $270 billion in Medicare cuts. I am still waiting for it, and the American people are still waiting for it. Mr. Speaker, I think it is our obligation as Members of this House and as Congressmen to make sure that that plan comes out in specifics and there is ample time to analyze it before we vote on it in this House and in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. the effects of redistricting

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 15, 1995, the Middletown, NJ, Post 2179 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Ladies Auxiliary will hold its 13th annual candlelight service in memory of America's prisoners of wars and missing in action. Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of the American people believe that we must never forget our servicemen and women whose whereabouts remain unknown or unaccounted for. While our hearts go out to families whose loved ones have died in the service of our country, the families of POW's and MIA's do not even have the consolation of having said goodbye to their loved ones. These families live in anxiety and dread. We cannot even imagine what horrors the POW's and MIA's have endured--and, in some cases, may still be enduring. Our Nation has now reopened diplomatic and economic relations with Vietnam. This decision caused pain for many veterans of the Vietnam war and their families. I disagreed with this decision, but now it is time for us to use our new relationship with Vietnam to force a resolution of the POW/MIA question. Our diplomats must never let up or let their Vietnamese counterparts off the hook until we get a full accounting of the fate of those Americans who served in Vietnam and whose fate remains unresolved. There is compelling evidence that at least 80, and possibly many more Americans could have been left behind in 1973 when their comrades in arms--supposedly all of our prisoners--came home. The same holds true for Russia and other nations with which we now have expanded relations since the end of the cold war. There are indications that American prisoners from Vietnam and Korea were kept in the Soviet Union. Some of these cases have finally been resolved, but there is a great deal more work to do. Since Russia clearly needs our help and support, we should insist on getting something back from them. We also need to keep the pressure on our own Government to make sure that all relevant documentation is made available to families and others concerned with the fate of the prisoners and the missing. Mr. Speaker, the members of the Middletown VFW and Ladies Auxiliary, like their counterparts across the country, provide a great public service by fighting to keep alive the memory of their missing comrades. Their loyalty to the prisoners and the missing provides an example for all of us to remember. Every Memorial Day, the Nation pauses to remember those who paid the ultimate price in the service of their country. We should do the same for the POW's and MIA's until we have a full accounting for their fate.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday myself and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] held a second forum in New Jersey on the issue of Medicare, and many senior citizens were seriously concerned about how the severe Republican cuts to Medicare will affect them. Unfortunately, it is difficult to answer that question definitively since we only know what the press has leaked on the subject. I would like to know where the Republican plan is. It is after Labor Day. We still do not have it. Are we going to have any time to review it even before we vote in a few weeks? How can the Members of Congress he expected to vote on the largest Medicare reduction in history and fully represent their constituent interests when the Republicans still have no plan? When the Republicans finally release their Medicare plans, they should allow a significant period of time to analyze the specifics. I do not think that is too much to ask on such an important issue. The Republicans have been reluctant to release their plan because they fear the wrath of senior citizens. They seem to be opting for the stealth approach by cutting $270 billion, the largest cut in the history of Medicare without letting the public know the details.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight because I think it is imperative that the American public in general and the people of New Jersey specifically, understand the details and consequences of the Republican's plan to slash funding for Federal student assistance programs. Indeed, while I support efforts to balance the Federal budget, I believe attempting to do so by restricting the average citizen's access to institutions of higher education is unequivocally a step in the wrong direction. I have to day, Mr. Speaker, that I am perplexed at the logic behind the cuts the Republicans have already approved. Like so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I benefited from student assistance programs when I was in college. But unlike my Republican colleagues, I think it is grossly unfair for my generation to call for an end to student assistance programs after we used them to get to where we are today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to use Rutgers University as an example of the negative impact of the Republican proposals. As a former student of Rutgers Law School who now represents the main campus of Rutgers University in Congress, I am deeply troubled about the impact these cuts will have on the 6,500 plus low-income and middle-class New Jersey students who used them to secure a Rutgers education. As part of the 1996 Education appropriations bill, Republicans have eliminated all capital contributions for Perkins loans, which are designed to specifically assist low-income students and received $158 million in fiscal year 1995. If finalized, such a cut would have a dramatic impact on the more than 3,100 low-income Rutgers students who are provided with nearly $5 million in Perkins loans this year. The bill also attacks Pell grants, limiting the maximum award to $2,400 and eliminating assistance to students who qualify for grants of less than $600. This cut would prevent some 7,000 students at Rutgers, and some 360,000 of their cohorts at universities across the Nation, from receiving Federal education assistance. The Republican assault on education, moreover, is hardly contained entirely within the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill. Looming on the horizon is an attack on the interest subsidy on Federal direct subsidized Stafford loans as part of the reconciliation bill. One scenario is a complete elimination of the interest subsidy for graduate students. But with a targeted student loan reduction of a staggering $10.2 billion over 7 years, it seems likely the Republicans will not reach their goal without raiding undergraduate Stafford loans as well. Elimination of this Federal subsidy could increase the average undergraduate student's indebtedness by as much as 20 or even 30 percent. For those who wish to go on to graduate schools, the increase could be as much as 40 percent with monthly payments on a 10-year plan rising to a whopping $753 per graduate student. With the Department of Education projecting that 89 percent of the jobs being created in the United States will require post-secondary training, the Republican inclusion of student assistance programs in the fiscal year 1996 budget belies their claim that the legislation is what's best for the American economy. Attempting to foster economic growth by limiting the very means which serves as its engine is, pure and simple, bad public policy. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government recently began experimenting with a direct university loan program instead of the traditional bank loan subsidized with Federal dollars. In addition to the upcoming dissection of Federal interest subsidies, there is also likely to be a Republican attempt to terminate the direct loan program where the university is substituted for a bank lender. This approach to dispersing student loans not only saves the taxpayers billions of dollars, but cuts through redtape at a much more rapid pace than the old bank system, thereby allowing schools to process more applications in a shorter time period. In its first year of implementation at Rutgers, the direct loan program enabled the schools' financial aid office to process loans for 15,295 students with term bills being credited to their accounts immediately by the week those term bills were due. The year before the implementation of direct funding, the schools' financial aid office processed only 3,283 loans during the same period. This expedited process made excess funds available earlier for over 12,000 Rutgers students, and thousands on campuses across the country, facilitating their ability to buy books, pay rent, and keep on top of other school related expenses. [[Page H 8782]] Thus, as the issues I outlined illustrate, the Republican attack on education moves higher education closer to being yet another Republican designed luxury for the wealthy. I think I speak for all of us when I say that our presence here tonight should be mistaken for nothing less than our determination to prevent access to higher education from moving out of the realm of Government priorities and into the realm of privileges for the few. Mr. Speaker, those of us who benefited from student loan programs, those of us who were able to get an education, undergraduate, graduate, or professional school, realize how important it is to have these Government programs. It is very unfair for those of us who are now in Congress to be advocating these student loan programs or grant assistance programs should be terminated or cut back, particularly at a time when this country faces such competition from abroad and we know that higher education is a very valuable tool for those who want to go out and be successful and get a job in this very competitive world.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, during the month of August, I met with many senior citizens who are very concerned about the proposed Republican Medicare reductions of $270 billion. I am even more concerned that there are no specifics as to how the cuts will be made. The Republicans so far have refused to give us any details concerning their plan. The public has the right to examine the Republican plan. Instead the Republicans are opting for the stealth attack approach of slipping cuts right by seniors before their plans can be analyzed. Many Republicans are claiming that Medicare is going broke, which is simply not true. Medicare is more solvent today than it has been in a long time. The trustees report show that definitively. As a matter of fact the trustees have spoken out against the Republican plans in a commentary entitled, ``Rehabilitation Needed, Not Surgery,'' [[Page H 8666]] which was printed in the Los Angeles Times. I would like to submit this commentary for the Record. The article outlines the fact that the Republicans did not stumble onto something new regarding the question of Medicare solvency. In the last 20 years, the trustees reported several times that Medicare would run out of money in 4 years or 6 years. The recent trustee report extends solvency to an all-time high of 7 years, 1 more year than was the case last year. I wonder why Republicans did not raise this issue last year, when health care reform--to increase health coverage--was the biggest issue of the year? Throughout the last 20 years questions of solvency have been raised and Congress worked together making the minor adjustments necessary to maintain Medicare's funding. Congress can work together again, if Republicans will drop their $270 billion Medicare cut. The trustees go on to say that the Republican's Medicare cuts are excessive, citing that ``It is not necessary to cut benefits to ensure the fund's solvency.'' I believe the true motivation behind the largest Medicare cuts in history is giving the better-off a big tax cut. Republicans first propose taking $270 billion out of Medicare and then call it reform. Seniors in New Jersey realize what is really happening. They are being asked to come up with more than $1,000 a year in out-of-pocket costs in order to finance a tax cut largely for the wealthy. It is simply not fair and those of us who care about seniors must fight to kill this terrible Republican proposal. The article referred to is as follows: [From the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 28, 1995] Rehabilitation Needed, Not Surgery (By Robert E. Rubin, Donna E. Shalala, Robert B. Reich and Shirley S. Chater) Our nation is involved in a serious examination of the status and future of Medicare. Congressional Republicans have called for $270 billion in cuts over the next seven years, claiming that Medicare is facing a sudden and unprecedented financial crisis that President Clinton has not dealt with, and that all of the majority's cuts are necessary to avert it. While there is a need to address the financial stability of Medicare, the congressional majority's claims are simply mistaken. As trustees of the Part A Medicare Trust Fund, which is the subject of the current debate, and authors of an annual report that regrettably has been used to distort the facts, we would like to set the record straight. Concerns about the solvency of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund are not new. The solvency of the trust fund is of utmost concern to us all. Each year, the Medicare trustees undertake an examination to determine its short-term and long-term financial health. The most recent report notes that the trust fund is expected to run dry by 2002. While everyone agrees that we must take action to make sure that the fund has adequate resources, the claim that it is in a sudden crisis is unfounded. The Medicare trustees have nine times warned that the trust fund would be insolvent within seven years. On each of those occasions, the sitting President and members of Congress from both political parties took appropriate action to strengthen the fund. Far from being a sudden crisis, the situation has improved over the past few years. When President Clinton took office in 1993, the Medicare trustees predicted the fund would be exhausted in six years. The President offered a package of reforms to push back that date by three years and the Democrats in Congress passed the plan. In 1994, the President proposed a health reform plan that would have strengthened the fund for an additional five years. So what has caused some members of Congress to become concerned about the fund? Certainly not the facts in this year's trustees report that these members continually cite. The report found that predictions about the solvency of the fund had improved by a year. The only thing that has really changed is the political needs of those who are hoping to use major Medicare cuts for other purposes. President Clinton has presented a plan to extend the fund's life. Remarkably, some in Congress have said that the President has no plan to address the Medicare Trust Fund issue. But he most certainly does. Under the President's balanced budget plan, payments from the trust fund would be reduced by $89 billion over the next seven years to ensure that Medicare benefits would be covered through October 2006--11 years from now. The congressional majority's Medicare cuts are excessive; it is not necessary to cut benefits to ensure the fund's solvency. The congressional majority says that all of its proposed $270 billion in Medicare cuts over seven years are necessary. Certainly, some of those savings would help shore up the fund, just as in the President's plan. But a substantial part of the cuts the Republicans seek--at least $100 billion--would seriously hurt senior citizens without contributing one penny to the fund. None of those savings (taken out of what is called Medicare Part B, which basically covers visits to the doctor) would go to the Part A Trust Fund (which mostly covers hospital stays). As a result, those cuts would not extend the life of the trust fund by one day. And those Part B cuts would come out of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries, who might have to pay an average of $1,650 per person or $3,300 per couple more over seven years in premiums alone. Total out-of-pocket costs could increase by an average of $2,825 per person of $5,650 per couple over seven years. According to a new study by the Department of Health and Human Services, these increases would effectively push at least half a million senior citizens into poverty and dramatically increase the health care burden on all older and disabled Americans and their families. The President's plan, by contrast, protects Medicare beneficiaries from any new cost increases. As Medicare trustees, we are responsible for making sure that the program continues to be there for our parents and grandparents as well as for our children and grandchildren. The President's balanced budget plan shows that we can address the short-term problems without taking thousands of dollars out of peoples' pockets; that would give us a chance to work on a long-term plan to preserve Medicare's financial health as the baby boom generation ages. By doing that, we can preserve the Medicare Trust Fund without losing the trust of older Americans.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to correct this terrible hoax that the Republicans are playing on the American people, that somehow the Medicare Program is bankrupt or insolvent. In fact, the trustee's report that came out this year showed dramatically that Medicare has never had more money available and, in fact, the life of the program is at least 7 years beyond this year. That is a longer period of time before Medicare goes insolvent than any other period of time that the trustees have reported on in the last few years. The fact of the matter is that we cannot keep this Medicare Program with a huge pot of money, because if we did that, providers and others would want to raid the program to take advantage of that pot of money. Congress has historically kept the amount of money simply for a few years going in order to protect the program, and it is a cruel hoax on the American people to suggest that Medicare is going insolvent. What the Republicans are doing is raiding the Medicare trust fund in order to finance a tax cut. It is that simply. They do not want to tell the truth about what is happening here. It is a huge tax cut for the richest Americans.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again, I would emphasize that I do not intend to use the majority of that time, but I would like to take the time that I plan to use to talk about medicare and what reaction I received during the last 4 weeks when we were having our August district work period. I found through visiting my constituents and having forums and trying to [[Page H 8588]] address them, in particular on the medicare issue, that many of them were not aware of the challenges that face medicare when we come back in September at this time. But when they were told about the level of cuts, the $270 billion in cuts that have been proposed by the Republican leadership, and are included in the Republican budget that was adopted last spring, they were very concerned about the impact that that record level of cuts in the medicare program would have. Mr. Speaker, I think they have every reason to be concerned because I feel very strongly that that level of cuts, the $270 billion that has been proposed, cannot be implemented without major changes, negative changes, in the medicare program, and probably also without significant out-of-pocket, additional out-of-pocket expenses for senior citizens and those who take advantage of the medicare program. I wanted to make a few points about these drastic cuts in medicare, if I could, tonight. The first point I would like to make is that the Republican sponsored medicare reductions really should come as no surprise, because 30 years ago, when medicare was first adopted, there was tremendous opposition to the medicare program by the majority of the Republicans in Congress, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives. In fact, the leading Republican presidential candidate now, Senator Bob Dole, voted against the creation of the medicare program 30 years ago when he was a Member of this body, the House of Representatives. If you look back at the record of key votes in the history of medicare, going back to 1960, when it was first being proposed, 97 percent of the Republicans in the Senate voted against the creation of the medicare program; and then, 2 years later, on July 17, 1962, 86 percent of the Republicans in the Senate voted against the creation of medicare. Later that year, on September 2, 1962, 85 percent of the Republicans in the Senate voted against the creation of medicare. The same was essentially true in the House of Representatives, in this body. In 1965, when some of the key votes took place on April 8 of 1965, 93 percent of the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted for a Republican substitute which would have replaced the medicare program with a voluntary health insurance program for the elderly with no guaranteed financing and no guaranteed benefits. Then, on July 27, 1965, 49 percent of the Republicans in the House voted against the creation of medicare on the vote on the adoption of the conference report on the medicare bill. Thus, many House Republicans who had voted for the Republican voluntary plan I mentioned before, turned around and also voted for the final Democrat sponsored medicare bill, perhaps out of fear of the wrath of their constituents once the medicare program finally got started. Now that the Republicans are in power here again in both the House and the Senate, and we are talking 30 years later, they want to finance their tax cuts for those better off with Medicare cuts. If you look at this budget that I talked about before, the one that was adopted back in April by the Republican majority here in the House and in the Senate, $270 billion in Medicare cuts roughly translate into a tax cut to the tune of $245 billion. So if you took a chart and you looked at the level of the Medicare cuts, it is pretty much the same as the level of the tax cuts that have been proposed. I would maintain that although Medicare may need some minor reform, it is not as disaster prone as the Republicans are trying to portray it, and that, in effect, what they are doing with these Medicare reductions is basically budget driven and is not any effort to reform the Medicare Program. Mr. Speaker, I have heard some of my colleagues in the House mention that the trustees' report on Medicare, that comes out every year, this year indicated that Medicare would be insolvent within 7 years. I would point out, however, that that is one of the longest periods of times projected for money to be available for the Medicare Program. If you look back at some of the trustee reports in prior years, they were for 2 years or 3 years before the program became insolvent. The bottom line is that, historically, in Congress, we have tried to keep a short rein on the amount of money that is available in the future for Medicare so that it is not raided, so that the hospitals and other health care providers do not say, well, gee, there is this huge pot of money out there that will last us a long time, so why do we not raise our rates and why do we not, in effect, take some of that money to pay us as providers because of the need that we have. So we cannot here in the House of Representatives or in Congress in general say that Medicare should have a huge pot of money that is available for the next 10 or 20 years, because the end result of that is that that money would probably be raided. We must keep it on a short rein. Lester Thurow is not an isolationist. He believes in free markets, he believes in the global economy. Lester Thurow cannot be easily pinpointed or pigeonholed as a conservative or a liberal. What we do know is that he is an outstanding thinker, an outstanding economist. I think that some of the things that Lester Thurow had to say in this article last Sunday are absolute must reading for every American. Every adult American should begin to try to understand what is happening to them, what is the matter with our economy, what is affecting our culture, what is destroying our families. Here is an economist who started out from the point of view of an economist and makes a very strong statement about American families. Let me just share with you some of the paragraphs and some portions of Lester Thurow's article. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the entire article by Lester Thurow which appeared in the Sunday, September 3d New York Times be entered into the Record. The first paragraph is the most shocking statement. The first paragraph should be emblazoned on the walls of this hall to remind all of us as to where we are right now. Mr. Thurow opens with this statement. Listen carefully: ``No country without a revolution or a military defeat and subsequent occupation has ever experienced such a sharp shift in the distribution of earnings as America has in the last generation. At no other time have median wages of American men fallen for more than two decades. Never before have a majority of American workers suffered real wage reductions while the per capita domestic product was advancing.'' Mr. Speaker, that is the end of first paragraph of Mr. Thurow's article. Mr. Speaker, it is so outstanding, and it does such a great job of summing up exactly where we are in this ongoing, radical change. It is under way already; it has been under way for two decades now, Mr. Thurow says. Let me just repeat: ``No country, without a revolution or a military defeat and subsequent occupation, has ever experienced such sharp shift in the distribution of earnings as America has in the last generation. At no other time have median wages of American men fallen for more than two decades. Never before have a majority of American workers suffered real wage reductions while the per capita domestic product was advancing.'' Mr. Speaker, that is the end of the quote from Mr. Thurow's first paragraph. Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is very significant that Mr. Thurow's article appears on Sunday, September 3, the day before Labor Day where we do pay some homage to the working people of America. On Labor Day we stop and consider the plight of the workers or the conditions of workers, and it is quite appropriate that this article should appear on that day. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities that used to be called the Education and Labor Committee. There was a time when the official Government of America paid more recognition and homage to organized labor. Just a year ago we had a committee with labor in the name of it. But now the Education and Labor Committee is no more, it is called the Committee on Economic and Education Opportunities, and none of the subcommittees have the name labor in them. The change in name is reflective of the change in attitude, because a [[Page H 8589]] massive war has been declared on organized labor and on workers in America. Let me just get that straight. Because workers in America all need a wage increase. A raise in the minimum wage is not just for people who are unionized, a raise in the minimum wage benefits all workers, and most of the workers who are working at minimum wage now and who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage are not unionized. Most unionized workers are making more than the minimum wage. It has been proposed by President Clinton and by Democrats in Congress that we raise the minimum wage two steps, a mere 90 cents, and that has met all-out war. The leadership of the majority Republicans have declared, never. Never will we permit minimum wages to move forward at all. So minimum wages benefit all workers. There is no consideration in the program of the majority for relieving workers of the wages that have led to the condition that Mr. Thurow is describing here in the first paragraph. Mr. Speaker, in addition to not tolerating any discussion of forward movement on minimum wage, the majority Republicans here have declared war on workers on a massive basis. Speaker Gingrich uses the phrase that politics is war without blood. Well, they have declared war on workers and war on organized labor. We have a whole series of bills that have been introduced which seek to undercut the gains of the last 50 years for working Americans. We have bills that have been introduced which will radically change OSHA. OSHA is the safety agency, the Agency which is responsible for workplace safety. We have a bill which is designed to curb the activities of the National Labor Relations Board. We have a bill which is designed to cut the budget drastically and curb the activities of MSHA, the mine safety agency. We have a bill which is designed to undercut the organization of workers called the Team Act, which is allowing employers to select the people who are going to be the collective bargaining agents. We have a number of bills of that kind which are stymied in the sense that they have to move through a two-stage process. they have to go through the House where there are definitely enough votes. The Republican majority has enough votes to make certain that they pass. They also have to go through the Senate. That is a slow process. So what has the Republican majority of the House decided to do? They have taken the appropriations bills and they have used the appropriations bills to legislate these changes. They do not have authorizing legislation to deal with the gutting of OSHA and the destruction of safety measures for American workers, so they have cut OSHA by more than 30 percent, about 33 percent in the appropriations process. In the appropriations process they have put in language which says, no funds may be used for certain activities. They cannot even study ergonomics. Ergonomics, which is a serious problem where workers who are involved in repetitive motion have well-identified ailments and problems and we cannot even study that anymore. So there is an onslaught on working people and an onslaught on organized labor which is very significant in light of the fact that Mr. Thurow says, these people that you are waging war against have already suffered greatly in the last two decades. Mr. Speaker, let me just continue reading from Mr. Thurow's article. Another paragraph reads as follows: ``The tide rose, the real per capita gross domestic product went up 29 percent between 1973 and 1993, but 80 percent of the boats sank. Among men, the top 20 percent of the labor force has been winning all of the country's wage increases for more than two decades.'' Twenty years. For more than 20 years, the men at the very top already are the only ones who have been winning the wage increases. Listen closely again. ``The tide rose, but 80 percent of the boats sank.'' Remember Ronald Reagan invented the slogan, all tides will rise if you cut taxes and you take care of corporations and you deal with providing maximum benefits for the rich, they will invest and all tides will rise, everybody will benefit. Well, here is an economist who says that, it worked in terms of the tide rising from 1973 to 1993, a 20-year period. But 80 percent of the boats sank; 80 percent of the American population does not benefit from this great prosperity that we have experienced in the last 20 years and are still experiencing. Mr. Speaker, let me just pause for a moment, because I think it is very important that we consider that Mr. Thurow later on offers no solutions, but consider the fact that for a small percentage, for 20 percent, we have great prosperity. Wall Street is booming, profits are higher than ever before. These are the benefits of technology, computerization, automation, all kinds of various technological changes, most of which are the result of Government research, most of which are driven by the fact that in our defense race, in our military arms race with the Soviet Union we did tremendous amounts of research. Since World War II tremendous amounts of research have laid the basis for much of the booming economy that we have today. One of the biggest beneficiaries has been the telecommunications industry. Telecommunications benefits all the way from computerization and miniaturization of parts which were perfected first in Government research trying to get things together for our missiles and our space program, all the way to satellites that are up there in the atmosphere now, satellites that were perfected and developed by the Government. The biggest industry in terms of the hardest industry in terms of dollars, in terms of transaction is the communications industry, telecommunications and media. All of those have benefited. They have benefited from the public expenditure, the public participation. But now, only 5 percent of the population benefits from the profits. Part of the solution to the long-term problem lies in the recognition of the fact that there should be some sharing of those benefits, that the small percentage of Americans are reaping as a result of the effort made by the larger mass of society. Sharing that is part of where the answer to the problem lies. Mr. Speaker, let me just continue to read from Mr. Thurow again: New production and distribution technologies require a much better educated force, a much better educated force. If decisions are to be pushed down the corporate hierarchy, those at lower levels have to have skills and competency beyond what was required in the past. With our global economy where anything can be made anywhere and sold everywhere, the supply of cheap, often well-educated labor in the third world is having a big effect on first world wages. One month's wages for a Seattle software engineer gets the same company an equally good engineer in Bangalor, India for a whole year. One month's wages for an engineer, a software engineer gets the same company an equally good engineer in Bangalor, India for a whole year. Consider the implications of that. You have heard a lot about unskilled jobs and manufacturing jobs leaving the country. Well, here are jobs for which a college degree is required. Here are jobs which require extensive training and experience, and you can go overseas and get the same quality of workers for one-twelfth the cost of the worker. I think engineers probably do not like to be called workers. They are professionals. That is a great myth in this country. Professionals think they are different, they are safe. Large numbers of people who did not join unions are now talking about forming associations, in order to deal with a situation where the country is being hijacked. The multinational corporations are ignoring the plight of the workers. Corporations are not in business to take care of workers. Corporations are not in business to make America great. Corporations are not in business to promote national security. There are a lot of things we have been led to believe, but which are just ridiculous. Corporations are in the business to make money and that is what they are supposed to do. Nobody should worry about that. They are there for profit and that is their business. All power to corporations to make profits. Government and the people who run the Government, Congressmen, Members of the House of Representatives and Members of the Senate, the President, Government has the responsibility of taking care of the country, of seeing that our society is not destroyed, of seeing that families are not destroyed. Whatever is necessary to be [[Page H 8590]] done now is up to us, not to corporations. Let them go. They will do whatever they can to increase their profits. That is their business. The Republican plan to reduce Medicare funding by this $270 billion I believe is going to force seniors to pay out of their pocket as much as $1,000 per year over the next few years. The biggest problem, though, is that right now we really do not know what the Republican leadership is going to suggest as a means of implementing this major reduction in Medicare. If we look at some of the proposals that are out there, we can see that they are devastating, but so far, there is not a specific proposal that we can examine in detail. I am concerned that what we are going to see is that sometime toward the end of this month, in September, we are going to see a plan put forward at the last minute, without an opportunity for a great deal of debate, and it is going to be brought to the House floor in some manner through a procedural vote so that there are only a few hours or a few days or perhaps a little longer than that for this great national debate on how to change the Medicare Program. I would say that that is essentially a stealth plan; to bring this up at the last minute, bring it up when there is not a lot of time for the public to review it, and then pass it. I think we have to guard against this stealth attack, and hopefully, certainly myself and others will bring it to the attention of the American public when this finally comes out, that there has not been enough time, and there should be enough time to review it in detail. Mr. Speaker, this past month, in August, when we did have our district work period for about 4 weeks, I had the opportunity in my home State of New Jersey to join with the other Democratic Congressmen from my State to essentially try to put forward to the public through various means our concern about these Medicare reductions. We had a very successful bus trip around the State which started at the State House in Trenton and traveled from Trenton to Edison, in my district, and then to Elizabeth, and finally to North Bergen in Hudson County. We expressed the concern, both myself, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Payne, that the Republican plans of gutting Medicare would essentially end the Federal Government's 3-decade-old commitment to provide health coverage for older Americans. We gave four top reasons, pursuant to our bus trip, we called it the Medicare Express, why the public should oppose the Republican Medicare cuts. I would like to highlight those four reasons now, if I could. One I already sort of hinted at, and that is that we are going to see dramatically increased health costs for seniors. We have to understand that this $270 billion in cuts outlined in the Republican budget resolution is the largest cut in the history of Medicare. No matter how we figure it out, it is going to result in major out-of-pocket expenditures to our senior citizens, and increased costs essentially. Second to that and just as important when we were out on the road and talking to seniors was the concern that we found on the part of senior citizens in New Jersey, and I am sure it is shared with the rest of the country, that the Republican plan will restrict choice and also reduce the quality of care; because essentially what I think we are going to see, and we have already heard some talk about that, is that on the House side, the Republicans have put forward this idea of a voucher plan, that somehow they will give senior citizens a check or a voucher, as it is called, and that the seniors then take that voucher or check to go out and buy their own health insurance in the private market. I think a lot of people do not realize that Medicare now is a government-run program. If we simply give people a voucher and make them go out and buy their own health insurance, a lot of them are not going to be able to afford the existing what we call fee-for-service system, which allows them to choose their own doctor or their own hospital and then have the Government reimburse the doctor or the hospital for the care. What will happen, I believe, is that if we do a voucher system, which again is budget-driven or cost-driven, a lot of seniors will find that they cannot buy a fee-for-service system that allows them to choose their own doctor or their own hospital with the amount of money they get in the voucher. Therefore, they will be forced into what we call HMO's or managed care systems, which basically prevent or limit seniors' choices with regard to doctors and with regard to hospitals. That is why we, as Democrats, have been very suspicious of the Medicare cuts, not only because of the increased health costs for seniors, but also because if we move to a voucher system, where somehow we force senior citizens into a HMO, we are restricting their choice of hospitals and we are restricting their choice of physicians. In many cases many of the seniors have used the particular hospital or physician for 30, 40 years, and all of a sudden they will find they do not have a choice anymore. However, the Medicare cuts not only harm seniors, they also harm all Americans, because if we look at what has happened in the past and what existed before the Medicare system was established 30 years ago, young families were often faced with the prospect of caring for a seriously ill elderly relative, and faced bankruptcy in order to care for that relative. Medicare has basically made it possible for young families to spend their hard-earned resources on other things, other than seniors or their parents or grandparents' health care; for example, for their children's education. If we go back to a system where seniors do not have quality care or do not have sufficient care, then a lot of those costs are going to be borne by younger people and make it more difficult for them to do other things; for example, care for their children or their children's education. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would stress that it really is not fair, because 30 years ago this Congress made a compact or a contract, if you will, with senior citizens that said that they would be provided with health care when they reached the age of 65. That contract is essentially broken if Medicare is gutted or if seniors do not have access to the doctors or hospital of their choice, or have quality care. The Republicans on the Committee on the Budget have put forward a number of suggestions for implementing this $270 billion cut in the Medicare program. They put together what they call a budget task force that came up with about over 30 recommendations about how to implement these cuts. I just wanted to highlight a few of them. I mentioned the voucher plan, which I think is the worst of all. However, some of the other ideas that were mentioned were increased premiums for new beneficiaries who use Medicare fee-for-service. In other words, if instead of going to a voucher system, you say to seniors, Look, if you want to stay in a fee-for-service system where you choose you own doctor, as opposed to an HMO, we will simply make you pay more for that, for that type of a system, the one you have now. The other option, of course, is to just increase deductibles or to increase copayments. Many seniors, most seniors know now, that there are deductibles and there are copayments for various services, so you could simply increase those and there would be more out-of-pocket expenditures. However, the one thing that has not been highlighted very much, and I wanted to spend just a little bit of time on it today, because when I was back in my district in New Jersey and I went around, a lot of the people who showed up at either the forums or who called me were from hospitals who were concerned about the quality of care, and what it would mean to the hospitals if this program of Medicare cuts were to take place. I was amazed when I got information from the State Hospital Association and from some of the hospitals in my 6th Congressional District about how these cuts, what these cuts would mean in terms of dollars, because so many of the hospitals in my part of the country, and I am sure in others, are so dependent upon Medicare, as well as Medicaid funding. Medicaid is the program, the health care program, for poor people. Medicare is, or course, the health care program for senior citizens. [[Page H 8591]] If I could take as an example Monmouth Medical Center, which is in my hometown of Long Branch, which we did visit, and where I talked with the president of the hospital and some of the hospital executives about the problems that they would face with these levels of Medicare cuts, they estimated that at Monmouth Medical Center, which is the largest area hospital in my district, that the Monmouth Medical Center would lose an estimated $77 million in Medicare payments over the next 7 years under this Republican proposal. Interestingly enough, Monmouth Medical Center receives 55.17 percent, or a majority of its revenues, from Medicare and Medicaid. That figure is pretty much repeated for a lot of the other hospitals in my district. Jersey Shore Medical Center, which some people know recently had to lay off a lot of personnel, 56.29 percent of its revenues are from those two programs; Riverview in Red Bank, 51 percent; John F. Kennedy Medical Center in Edison, 59 percent; South Amboy Medical Center, also in my district, 57 percent. Although the Republican congressional leadership has been vague about the specifics of their Medical proposal, it is inevitable that reductions in hospital spending will have to be a big part of this Medicare reduction package. The effects of these cuts will be felt throughout the community and force many hospitals to make some really tough choices. I think that we are going to see increasingly hospitals laying off staff, that is already happening to a lot of them, and many of the community benefits that hospitals now offer, such as multiple health screening centers, transportation services, and some of the clinics that are so important to a lot of people in my district and around the country would probably end up closing. The reductions in Medicare spending that are being proposed by the Republican majority did not cover the additional costs of program enrollment growth plus inflation, so in other words, what we are doing here is we are not anticipating that a lot more seniors will be entering into the Medicare program and taking advantage of it when we estimate what these costs are going to mean. I have a lot of other information, and I do not want to repeat it all. The bottom line is that increased Medicare admissions are a substantial part of the revenue that a lot of New Jersey hospitals receive, and we estimate through the hospital association, again, the New Jersey Hospital Association, that there are about 76 hospitals that would be on the critical list, in other words, either face closures or face significant downsizing if this Republican Medicare reduction takes effect. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just mention a couple more things in a larger sense before I conclude today. Then I am going to yield some time to my friend, the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] who I think would like to use some of the time that I have remaining. I cannot help, in discussing Medicare and the proposals that the Republican majority have put forward, not only with Medicare but also with Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, but think about what the situation was like in this House a year ago when the President had put forward a proposal for universal health coverage, and whether or not we liked President Clinton's proposals, and I frankly did, but whether or not you did or you did not, the focus of the debate in this House was on universal coverage, or at least trying to achieve an increase in the number of Americans that were covered by health insurance, rather than a reduction. We talked then, a year ago, about the fact that there were something like 30 million to 40 million Americans that had no health insurance coverage. The bottom line is if we look at the statistics, that figure has only gotten worse since that time a year ago. A year ago we had fewer people that were uninsured, and we had the hope that we were going to try through some mechanism to cover if not all of them, then a significant portion of them. Now one year later we face a situation where significantly more Americans, we estimate something like 43 to 44 million Americans, have no health insurance, yet, the focus in this House is on cutting back on the Medicare program for the elderly and the Medicaid program for the poor, which I would suggest ultimately is going to result in even more people entering the rolls of the uninsured. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, if I could, just quote some excerpts from a recent editorial that was in the Star Ledger on September 3, which is the major, the largest daily circulation newspaper in the State of New Jersey. It says: ``Last year at this time it was not just the major policy issue,'' talking about health care reform under discussion, ``but almost the only one. This year, for all practical purposes, it'', the health care reform agenda: Does not exist. Despite the intensity of today's political debate, it plays no part in the dialogue. One would think the problem of bringing health care coverage to the uninsured had disappeared, or miraculously been solved, except it has not. Things are worse. Last summer when President Clinton unsuccessfully pressed Congress to enact a system to provide universal health care coverage, estimates of the number of people without insurance ranged from 37 million to 39 million. This summer, with the fight for health care reform only a memory, the number of uninsured has increased. Estimates now range as high as 43.4 million. This means that one of six Americans is without coverage, and that does not take into account those who are underinsured and those who are paying scandalously high individual rates for their insurance. The number of uninsured will continue to grow rapidly. The Clinton administration claims that Republican plans to cut projected spending on Medicaid, the Federal-state program of health insurance for the poor, over 7 years could deprive nine million more people of coverage. The big mistake that both parties are making now is to ignore the larger need for a universal health care plan. The debate may have gone away but the problem is as acute as ever. Polls still show universal coverage to be a concept that has wide support. I think it is very sad that we are going to spend the next month here talking about how to cut back on the Medicare and the Medicaid program at a time when the number of uninsured continues to grow. What I hoped, and I hope that some day we will see it, is that the debate on Medicare reform would focus on what we could do to expand Medicare in a way that made the quality of health care better, and emphasized preventative care, and also saved money. Those of us who have been concerned about Medicare for a number of years in this House, many of us on both sides of the aisles have talked about, in the past have talked about expanding Medicare to include prevention measures such as prescription drugs or home health care. We know and studies have shown if you emphasize those prevention measures and you include prescription drugs or home health care and long-term care in the Medicare program, that prevents senior citizens from having to go to a hospital, being institutionalized in a nursing home, or whatever, and ultimately saves the Federal Government billions of dollars in costs for that institutionalized care. But instead of moving in that direction, looking for a Medicare reform proposal that would actually expand Medicare, emphasize prevention, and ultimately save money without negatively impacting seniors' health care, we are just talking about this budget-driven proposal by the Republican leadership that would slash Medicare by $270 billion and I believe ultimately gut the Medicare program and significantly decrease the quality of health care for America's seniors. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Congress has put forward a budget blueprint to cut Medicare by $270 billion, but have yet to illustrate how they are going to slash this program. Many constituents have written me expressing grave concern about the largest cuts in Medicare history and have asked how they will affect them. Unfortunately, I do not have definite answers to my constituents' concerns. My fear is that the Republicans are going to rush Medicare changes through the House of Representatives in September within a matter of days and attempt to force a vote on this issue before the American public has an opportunity to examine how these cuts will impact them. This is not the proper way to run Government or be honest with the American public. If the Republicans truly wanted to improve Medicare, then they wouldn't start by just cutting money from the program. They are making their cuts on the backs of senior citizens and threatening the Medicare Contract With America's Seniors. Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my concern over the House action earlier this week to reverse the Stokes-Boehlert amendment to the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill. The supporters of this amendment were trying to prevent a package of measures limiting the EPA's ability to improve, implement, and enforce environmental regulations. These curbs on the EPA's ability to enforce air and water quality standards are now unfortunately back in the bill which passed the House on Monday. They limit EPA's ability to spend funds on activities related to the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and Superfund--they even prevent the EPA from establishing drinking water standards for radon and arsenic--both known carcinogens. These provisions are terrible in terms of the effects they will have on the environment. One provision in particular prohibits EPA from using funds to assess any penalty where the state gives the polluter immunity from prosecution because the polluter voluntarily conducts an environmental audit. I think most people in America would agree that no corporation should be able to pollute without paying the price. Yet, the language that is included in this bill prevents EPA from assessing a penalty whether or not a state takes any action against a violator. In essence, the polluter is immune from an EPA assessed penalty whether they correct their violation or not. The self-audit privilege in this bill does nothing to help the good guys--those businesses and individuals that are trying to comply with the law--while it can easily serve as a shield to hide behind for conscious yet continuing violators. The result will be that those who are working to be in compliance with the law now will still work toward that end, while those who choose to violate the law will have an out from penalization. The bill already cuts EPA's enforcement budget in half. This and other provisions only serve to tie the agency's hands further by compromising its ability to enforce environmental regulations. It is the enforcement of these regulations that have increased the quality of the water we drink and fish and swim in and the quality of the air we breath. Without enforcement, the statutes we have on the books become hollow. If it wasn't offensive enough that these provisions were in the bill to begin with, it is even more offensive that after the environmental victory of voting them out, this body voted to put them back into the bill again.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bateman Saxton Edwards amendment to restore $22 million to the Impact Aid Program. This program, which suffered a 15 percent cut in funding in fiscal year 1995 is scheduled for another $83 million in cuts this year. Together these figures translate to a drastic 2-year reduction of 26 percent for Federal impact aid. The reason why this reduction is particularly drastic is quite simple. Impact aid is a program that provides for the education of the children of our military personnel and children on Indian reserves. Education programs run on federally owned property are, due to a lack of funds caused by an inability to collect State or local taxes, highly dependent on Federal funding. Without that assistance, the quality of education available for these children is certain to deteriorate. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, do you think it is fair some children in our country should be offered a lower standard of educational training just because they happen to live on federal land? It seems clear to me that as it is the Federal Government who owns the land on which these children live, the Federal Government should be obligated, just as State and local municipalities are, to provide adequate educational services for children. Mr. Chairman, what would you suggest I tell the military children of the Earle Naval Weapons Station in Tinton Falls and Fort Monmouth in Eatontown when I go back to New Jersey and they wonder why the resources for their education have been reduced? Indeed, how do I explain to their parents that their child's school day may have to be reduced because the government, though able to pay them to fight for their country, does not have enough money to educate their children? These are questions, Mr. Chairman, that they should not have to ask and I should not have to answer. While I support efforts to balance the Federal budget, I believe attempting to do so by gutting valuable education programs like impact aid is unequivocally a step in the wrong direction. With the Department of Education projecting that 89 percent of the jobs being created in the United States will require post-secondary training, it is clear that cutting education programs jeopardize the well-being of our children and, ultimately, the economic growth of our Nation. We must not allow the Federal Government to shirk its responsibilities to itself, and to our children. I urge my colleagues to act responsibly and vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] for their efforts on this behalf, and point out how important it is to make sure we have additional funds for impact aid. We have a situation in Monmouth County, which I represent, where some of the towns now have such a gap, if you will, between the actual cost of educating military children and what they actually receive in impact aid that it has actually become a major problem, to the point where the boards of education in some of the towns are actually saying that they do not want the military families anymore, because they are not getting sufficient impact aid. I hate to see a situation where we get to that point. I think it is important for us to continue to provide adequate funding so there is some relationship between the actual cost of education for military children and actually what the Federal Government provides. I thank the gentleman again.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to follow up on what the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand] said, and I have a great deal of respect for her, but it is not really accurate that this amendment is dealing with the issue of Federal funds going to the student groups. What the amendment does essentially is to say that the university will not be able to receive or utilize Federal funds that it gets for almost every purpose if it allows students to organize and by majority vote decide to have a referendum where an assessment is put on the students which individual students can get out of. That is what the amendment says. It is a very broad brush here. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] pointed out, and I am glad the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is willing to admit that basically he is trying to go after the native group or the PIRG group here, but if you look at the amendment, what it says, it paints a very broad brush. It is going to make it very difficult for student groups that want to speak out, and it puts in effect a gag on these student groups and punishes the university if they simply let a referendum take place where student activities are assessed for a particular purpose or organization. This is not compulsory. There is nothing to prevent individual students from checking off that they do not want to participate and do not want to contribute their funds. It is strictly voluntary. To make such a distinction between a negative and a positive check-off in my mind makes no sense. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] for what he said, but the bottom line is this has already had a very negative impact in New Jersey on the ability of student groups to organize and to speak out and exercise their First Amendment rights.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, as many know, the Republicans seek to cut $270 billion from the Medicare program, and the Republicans claim that these cuts will not hurt senior citizens. But if health care costs continue to rise faster than the money budgeted for Medicare, then seniors will either get less services or pay more money. It is that simple. One plan that the Republicans are considering is a voucher plan which would force senior citizens to purchase their own health insurance. While Republicans claims this is giving seniors more choice, many forget the reason Medicare was enacted was because health insurance was so expensive. Prior to Medicare, most seniors did not have any medical insurance. What the Republicans are in effect saying is, ``Seniors, here is a small amount of money. Go out and buy health insurance that you will not be able to afford.'' Now that Republicans are in power, they want to enact the largest cuts in Medicare history. The Republicans talk about reform, but they start with the cuts first. This is backwards, and it is also wrong. Republicans have forgotten the truly important contract, the contract with America's seniors.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of S. 21, the Bosnia Self-Defense Act. The recent collapse of the two so-called U.N. designated safe areas indicate that the U.N. mission is falling apart. It is clear the United Nations is not capable of protecting the Bosnian Moslems and is denying them the right to adequately protect themselves. Since its inception, the arms embargo has provided the Serbs who inherited the weapons of the former Yugoslavia with a decisive advantage in this war and the arms advantage as facilitated Serbian terror campaigns which have included ethnic cleansing, systematic mass rape, and executions. What is occurring in Bosnia is a campaign of terror by the Serbs that closely resembles the Nazi atrocities of World War II. Mr. Chairman, the tide may be turning in the war in Bosnia. There are signs that the Moslems may be able to take back the lands captured by the Serbs and ultimately lift the stranglehold on their capital, Sarajevo. With a new infusion of arms, the Bosnian Moslems may be able to take the upper hand in the war for the first time. Let us give the Bosnian Moslems a chance in this war by passing this bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk tonight briefly about what happened with regard to the VA, HUD, and EPA appropriations bill, and specifically the amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] on a bipartisan basis which was in effect turned around tonight. Mr. Speaker, I think many people do not realize in the House of Representatives you can vote once in what we call the Committee of the Whole, which is what happened with this bill last week, and have a vote one way, but again, when the bill comes to the full House, as it did tonight, you can have the same amendment or provision, and the bill can go another way, and what happened essentially, Mr. Speaker, is that over the weekend the Republican leadership spent a lot of time trying to convince Members and get Members back here so that in fact today, when this amendment came up again, the vote went the other way, and what I consider a very good amendment that was sponsored on a bipartisan basis by both Democrats and Republicans was defeated. The appropriations bill that we took up today essentially does great damage to the environment by including something like 17 riders, as we call them, that would prohibit expenditures of funds for enforcement of environmental protection. Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to the House of Representatives back in 1988, I believe the main reason I was elected was because I said I would come down here and try to protect the oceans and try and protect the environment. We had gone through a summer in New Jersey where we had medical waste wash up on the beaches. Our beaches were closed. People were very concerned about what the Federal Government was doing to protect the environment, particularly clean water, and we passed some major legislation over the last 7 or 8 years that increases protection of the environment not only with clean water, but clean air and a lot of other areas, and the most important aspect of that is enforcement because, if you think about it, you can pass all the environmental bills you want, you can have every environmental agency that you can possibly have, but if you do not have the money to hire people to go out and enforce the law, you might as well not have the laws on the books, and that is what we were facing here today, a bill, an appropriations bill, that cut back by one-third the amount of money that was available to the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the law and riders, if you can call them, or provisions that were put into this appropriations bill that made it difficult, if not impossible, for the EPA to enforce environmental laws. The amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] would have changed all that and taken out these riders, and, as I said, it did pass last week, but over the weekend a lot of pressure was put on this Congress, particularly the Republican Members, to try to make sure that that bill, that amendment failed today, and it did in fact fail today. To give you an idea of some of the provisions that are in this bill now, without that amendment having passed, the spending package includes more than 17 substantive riders which will gut key environmental provisions by prohibiting spending for implementation and enforcement. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the Clean Water Act, which is so important to my district and to coastal states. Basically, the bill would bring enforcement of the existing law to a halt. It stops enforcement of wetlands protection programs. It blocks the Great Lakes water quality initiative. It bars effluent guidelines and water quality [[Page H 8062]] standards. It freezes storm water permits and it also stops enforcement of sewer overflow permits. If you think of those things collectively, they add up to gutting the Clean Water Act. With regard to the Clean Air Act, it makes the clean air operating permit program voluntary. It exempts refineries from air toxic standards. It allows full credit for ineffective auto emission inspection and maintenance programs. It exempts the oil and gas industry from accident prevention programs. It provides special treatment for cement kilns and exempts those kilns that burn hazardous waste from air toxic regulation, and it forbids trip reduction strategies in state clean air plans. Mr. Speaker, some of these things I am providing are from an analysis put together by the Natural Resources Defense Council. On the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is so important to so many communities in this country, the bill prohibits, on EPA's issuance of tap water standards for arsenic, a known human carcinogen, it prohibits the EPA's issuance of a tap water standard for radon and other radionuclides. Other environmental protection programs are gutted. There is a threat, essentially, to the community right to know program. It is gutted. There are major cuts in the energy efficiency program. It also revokes the Delaney clause. Mr. Speaker, the bill essentially repeals the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's prohibition on the use of cancer causing pesticides in foods when the pesticides concentrate in processed foods, such as in the making of apple sauce. All in all, this is a very bad piece of legislation. It is really a shame tonight that we saw the reversal on the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it was 30 years ago today that Medicare passed the House of Representatives, and even in 1965 Republicans did not support the program. Their record on Medicare has been clear and is illustrated with this chart that we have here. At the time when Medicare was voted upon in 1960, 97 percent of Senate Republicans voted against creation of the Medicare Program; in 1962, 86 percent of Senate Republicans voted against creation of the Medicare Program; in 1964, 85 percent of Senate Republicans voted against creation of the Medicare Program; and then in 1965, 93 percent of the House Republicans voted to replace Medicare with their voluntary, no guarantees substitute. The rest of the chart indicates the remainder of the Republican record 30 years ago. Even the lead Republican presidential contender today, Senator Bob Dole, voted against the passage of the Medicare Program when he was in Congress 30 years ago this very day. And now that the Republicans are in control of Congress, one of their first acts is to dismantle the program that has assisted so many senior citizens in living a longer and decent life. As many know, the Republicans seek to cut $270 billion from the Medicare Program, costing senior citizens over a $1,000 in additional costs per year. Republicans claim that these cuts will not hurt senior citizens, but if health costs continue to rise faster than the growth in Medicare to seniors, then they will either get less services or pay more money. It is that simple. Of course the Republicans have not discussed the specific details of their Medicare plans, because they are afraid to tell seniors what will happen with the $270 billion in cuts that they have proposed. Mr. Speaker, I urge senior citizens to ask their Congressmen how these $270 billion in cuts will affect them, because if these cuts were not going to hurt seniors, then the plans would have been announced before a budget number was chosen. Instead, the Republicans are reforming Medicare backwards by arbitrarily picking $270 billion, the largest Medicare cut in history, and hiding the true facts from seniors. When Medicare was passed 30 years ago today, most Republicans said that it was not needed. Mr. Speaker, the facts could not be more clear. I would like to illustrate the positive impact that the Medicare Program has had on the lives of senior citizens through a few illustrations that we have here today. The first chart talks about the poverty rate for the age, which has dropped since 1967. If you look at the figures, for the general population and the senior population since the time Medicare was enacted, you can see the significant drop in the poverty rate for senior citizens.

Mr. PALLONE. Next we would like to show the drop in the death by stroke, which is indicated on this chart. For those over 65, rates have fallen by 63 percent in the years between 1960 and 1991, basically the 30-year or so period that we are talking about since the beginning of Medicare. Mr. Chairman, death by heart disease has also dramatically decreased. For those over 65, rates have fallen by 40 percent in the years between 1960 and 1991, again from the beginning of the debate on Medicare until relatively recently. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the next chart will show the number of seniors who have health coverage. In 1959, only 46 percent of America's seniors had health care coverage before Medicare was enacted, and of course this year in 1995, after Medicare and after 30 years of the program, 99 percent of America's senior citizens now have health care coverage. Mr. Chairman, instead of realizing these benefits, unfortunately, Republicans want to gut Medicare to meet their other backward promises. One plan that the party is floating is the voucher plan, which would basically limit the health care coverage of senior citizens. This plan will give seniors substandard health care, unless they have the ability to spend money out of their own pocket to pay for better coverage. Mr. Chairman, another plan would force seniors into managed care. Some people know them as HMO's. Many seniors are happy with their doctors and are not ready to be told which doctors they can or cannot seek, which is often the case with HMO's or other managed care programs. Life before Medicare for senior citizens was a world of poverty, low life expectancy and despair. Medicare has played an integral role in seniors' lives by not forcing them to choose between health care, food or shelter. Unfortunately, the Republicans want to take us back to the days when seniors had to make those unfortunate choices. Mr. Chairman, I just want to read one story from a New Jersey resident who submitted testimony for the record during the Committee on Ways and Means debate on Medicare during the early 1960's, because I think it illustrates the problems that many senior citizens had before the enactment of the Medicare program. This person testified before the committee on Ways and Means and said, ``I hope and pray that I do not live long enough to be a senior citizen. It is very hard for me to beg. I would rather do without, whether it is food, medicine or a doctor. Only severe pain or an emergency would get me into a hospital. I control my condition with pills''. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just hope and pray that the Republicans realize how vital Medicare is to every senior citizen. Those who cannot remember the past are unfortunately condemned to repeat it, but hopefully, we will not see it repeated with the Medicare Program being gutted.