Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), a gentleman who understands that the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees and AFSCME retirees both endorse the Democrat plan and oppose the Republican plan.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), the former insurance commissioner of North Dakota.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) how many speakers he has remaining.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means who understands that the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace, Agriculture and Implement Workers both support the Democrat bill and oppose the Republican bill.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Mascara). (Mr. MASCARA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), who recognizes that the American Medical Student Association and the American Network of Community Options and Resources both support the Democratic bill and oppose the Republican bill.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement). The gentleman from Tennessee understands that the National Senior Service Corps Directors Association and the American College of Nurse Midwives both support the Democratic bill and oppose the Republican bill. (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to bring this portion of the debate on our side to an end. Mr. Speaker, we are denied, not only the last word, which I am sure the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) will have, but we have been denied the opportunity to offer a bill. Had we had the opportunity, we would of course have suggested that we spend more money, hundreds of billions of dollars more money to provide a seamless guaranteed dependable benefit to seniors who could have the unknowing security that the government would be there in the last resort if no insurance company showed up, to see that they got the pharmaceutical drugs at a reasonable price. At a time in this country when we are so wealthy and when the surpluses are predicted to be many trillions of dollars, to me it is obscene to be sitting, offering to give away inheritance taxes and telephone taxes and taxes that nobody really cares about when we could be insuring our seniors, indeed we could be insuring our children and other folks in this country. But, no, this money is denied and is reserved for the wealthy few who would benefit from Republican tax cuts. Oppose the Republican bill, please, and support whatever minor motion to recommit we are finally allowed.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. STARK. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Speaker's brief indulgence as this is a complex issue, but it is important to the seniors in our country. Mr. Speaker, this Republican resolution has all points of order waived, and we have none. The budget resolution which the Republicans have created that makes our hundred billion dollar bill out of order does not comport with what the Republicans have done to provide tax cuts for the wealthiest. For example, there is $661,000 each for the wealthiest Americans under a tax cut, and yet only $460 a year for senior citizens in prescription drugs. That basically gets to the heart of why I would object to the gentleman's point of order against our bill. There is a doctrine. It is clearly not fair. We have no points of order waived, and they do. I think it was Asher Hinds' for Speaker Jubilation Cornpone in 1867 on a cold Thanksgiving evening who ruled on an issue of fairness, and I think it was Speaker Cornpone's statement, that goose again. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Parliamentarian Cannon- Deschler Precedents have carried this fairness doctrine down to today. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to object to the point of order on the grounds of fairness that has been established in this House for over 100 years and urge that the Speaker rule to allow the Democrats to present a plan which is arguably better than the Republican plan. Based on fairness, I do urge that the point of order is overridden.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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

Mr. STARK. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, this plan does what should be done for our seniors. It provides that there will be benefits far in excess of the Republican plan. There is no deductible that pays half the cost. Point of Order

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain that this Democratic motion to recommit would give the American people a true Medicare benefit and start us on the road to providing meaningful, adequate protection for seniors. Mr. Speaker, this is the same bill as was just ruled out of order with some changes to make the benefit to extend the benefits in time so that it fits within the budget requirements. It covers half of all spending on medicines up to $5,000. It has a $25 a month premium and that is deductible. It will not require our seniors to mail a check for $39 a month to some private insurance company, as would be required under the Republican bill. It has an out-of-pocket limit of $4,000. After the beneficiaries have spent $4,000, all funds above that spent for pharmaceutical prescriptions will be covered. Our package, in essence, provides twice as much help for our seniors as does the Republican bill. Mr. Speaker, in our motion to recommit, we use a budget determination safety device. It would provide up to $21 billion over 5 years and $40 billion over 10 years to help health care providers, hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, rural hospitals, and others to deal with the unexpected tough cuts in the balanced budget amendment. It would provide these where there is certification by OMB and we are on a path to retiring the publicly held national public debt by 2012, that Social Security is safe, and that Medicare is solvent past 2030. Mr. Speaker, our proposal is not the Republicans' let-us-help-you- buy-a-Medigap scheme, it is a benefit in Medicare as to Part A. They go to the doctor, any doctor, Medicare pays the bill. They pay 20 percent of that bill unless they have supplemental insurance or a union plan or they are in a managed care plan, in which case they pay nothing. That is what we do with pharmaceuticals. They do not shop around from insurance company to insurance company. They can, in our plan, stay with their company plan. They can stay with their HMO. They can stay with whatever they are happy with, or they can voluntarily join the Medicare plan for a premium of $25 a month, $14 a month less than the Republican premium for twice the benefits. The plan will cover all Medicare beneficiaries, and it will cover 5\1/2\ million more beneficiaries, according to the Congressional Budget Office, than the Republican plan. It helps low-income seniors, and it contains the same relief for rural HMOs as does the Republican bill. This is a bill that will help the American people, not the drug industry or the insurers. Quite contrarily, it will do nothing for the drug industry or the insurers. It will do something for our seniors who need the help. This should say, if one likes high-priced pills, support the Republican bill, which is supported by the drug makers' lobby. If they like hassles of HMOs, support the Republican bill. It would force everyone into a drug HMO program where they will be hassled over every pill their doctor prescribes, and they will be forced to drive miles and miles to some distant pharmacy. Under our bill, any pharmacy, any provider, would be able to provide their prescription if they chose to. If one wants a true, dependable, reliable benefit that covers all Americans who need help, support the Democratic bill and support the motion to recommit.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who understands that the American Association of Mental Retardation and Elder Care America both endorse the Democratic bill and oppose the Republican bill.