Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as I understand this amendment, what we are doing is elimination of or striking the clause where EPA is going to continue or start into global climate change research. It is my understanding of the EPA charter or the scope of their job, that it is to study the environment for regulatory purposes. My concern here is that we already have 12 agencies that are undergoing global warming research to the tune of about $1.8 billion, if my information is correct. I think we probably have a shotgun approach to this already. Some of these agencies probably, along with EPA, should not be in the business of studying this climate change, doing this research. The Department of Defense may have some arguments for it because of the nature of the business of defending the people of America. The Department of Commerce, I think, is an area where we probably should be redirecting some of this effort, and the Department of the Interior also. Certainly, there are other agencies like NASA and the National Science Foundation that have a direct tie into what we are doing in this research.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a credibility gap and a short history lesson. Many remember last spring, right here on the floor of the House, they talked about nutrition programs, and how the Republicans were going to slash nutrition programs and case children to starve. I was in the Dodge Edison Elementary School this Monday, and Dr. Larry Reynolds is doing a very fine job of running that institution. None of the children were starving, not one was reported. In fact, ask yourselves, have you heard of any children all across this Nation in public schools starving? The answer is no. That is the credibility problem. Those who were telling us that there were going to be starving children were wrong, absolutely wrong. Now we hear things like ``The Republican plan is going to kill Medicare. There are sweetheart deals, disastrous cuts. Savings are going to pay for tax cuts.'' The credibility gap rises again. We are going to preserve and protect Medicare for our parents and for our grandparents. We have a specific plan. It is realistic. It is in plain English. It is up front. Parents will have the right to choose what kind of health care. They will [[Page H 9903]] have the right to stay with their current doctor and their hospital. There is no credibility gap in the Republican plan. We delivered growth for nutrition programs. We will preserve and protect Medicare.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. One question I would like to approach the group with, I heard the charge earlier in the previous hour the savings we are going to get from the provisions we have to preserve and protect Medicare are going to go toward tax cuts for the wealthy. Have we put provisions in there to prevent the savings from Medicare to go to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy? I do not think that it is true. Could we respond to that?

Mr. TIAHRT. I would like to explore some of the details, and I yield to the [[Page H 10045]] gentleman from Georgia to cover some of the details in the Medicare plan that we have to preserve and protect cover Medicare.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, let me introduce the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], a physician who is joining us to enter the discussion on Medicare.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions to ask the gentleman about that, because we heard earlier that these were seniors that came to the hearing asking to be heard in a very polite manner and were mistreated by the chairman of that committee. The gentleman is telling us that was not exactly how it happened. The gentleman was there?

Mr. TIAHRT. Excuse me for interrupting, but this is a group, the gentleman said, that received more than $70 million in tax dollars, which is in excess of 95 percent of their budget?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will stick around for a while. I want to involve the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] in the discussion.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Norwood, who were some of the groups that came to the committee and testified in respect to the Medicare preservation plan?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight. I would like to start by saying that as you would hear on some radio stations by Paul Harvey or his son, now you will hear the rest of the story. Very soon we will have a tripod over here, so we will be able to show you some of the charts we have brought along. But, basically, I wanted to say that, in plain English terms, the Republican Party has come up with a plan, a specific plan, that will preserve and protect Medicare for our parents and our grandparents. What is wonderful about this plan is that it will still balance the budget, which will secure a future for our children. No seniors will be forced from Medicare. Seniors will have the right to alternative choices. They will have the right to stay with their current doctor or hospital. Over the course of the next hour, we hope to talk about some of the specifics of this plan. We also want to address some of the real needs that have been created by this plan running down the wrong path for some time. I want to start out with a chart that shows what the President's Social Security Medicare Board of Trustees report has said. There are three members of this Board of Trustees that are from President Clinton's Cabinet, and as you can see in this chart here, it says ``The fund is projected to be exhausted in 2001.'' That means by the year 2002, Medicare is going to have a very serious problem. What is very good about finding this out at this point in time is that we have time to correct the problem. We do not want to let the train get down the path too far, because it could result in a train wreck. Instead, we are able to change the system, and preserve and protect Medicare for our seniors. This chart shows part A trust fund, and it shows graphically what is going to happen to the trust fund. It starts over on the left side at approximately 1993 and goes over to 2004. Right in the center here is zero, which indicates the balance of the trust fund. Up here is $150 billion, and the bottom is negative $150 billion. As you see, as the path progresses over time, this red line indicates that we will cross the zero line or, in other words, go bankrupt, by approximately the year 2002, again, conforming what was told to us by the President's Board of Trustees. Now, part of the plan that we have in the Republican Party, many people have said that there are going to be cuts that are going to be put in place, and that these cuts are going to fund tax breaks given by Republicans to their rich friends. Nothing could be further from the truth, for several reasons. First of all, I want to tell people there are not cuts to Medicare. There are no cuts in the Republican plan. There is limited growth. But if you look at this next chart, it shows that we start, today, 1995, seniors receive $4,816. Now, that is what the average recipient gets per year under the current plan. Over the next 7 years, in the Republican plan, that grows 43 percent from $4,800 to $6,734. As the title across the bottom says, where is the cut? Now, this is going to result in a reduction in growth of about $270 billion. That number is very specific. It was chosen for a reason. It was targeted for a reason. The reason is that is what it is going to take to preserve and protect the program. Now, there have been some other plans that were put forward by the President and by Members of the Democrat Party that were to save less an amount of money, which just prolonged the agony. It did not reform the system or preserve and protect the choices that elderly people will have, and it did not give them the opportunity for options, for alternative plans. We will talk a little bit more about this later, but it is a very comprehensive plan. It is one that has been long in the making. I want to give you some of the sponsors of this plan. We heard a lot about the American Medical Association. They are at the top of the list. They do support the Republican plan to preserve and protect Medicare. I have an ad, a copy of an ad that was run by the American Medical Association, and it has a quote from Lonnie Barstow, president of the American Medical Association. I just want to read four brief quotes from this. [[Page H 10040]] One of the things that he says is ``This is a defining moment in Medicare history. No one can act without you. Your voice will be like a petal in a pond.'' He is talking about people, asking them to respond and support the Republican plan. ``It empowers patients so they can make their own health care choices.'' ``It recognizes the extraordinary value of physicians in managing and delivering health care.'' ``It removes the redtape and liability barriers that disrupts the patient- physician relationship.'' Some of the problems we have had in Medicare is we have people sit right here within the beltway, in the District of Columbia, not seeing the patients, making medical decisions. We think it is better that decisions remain with the patient and the physician. That is what the Republican plan does. You can see, we also have some other people that endorse preserving and protecting Medicare. We have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, the National Federation of Independent Business. We have the National Restaurant Association, we have the Citizens Against Government Waste, and we have the American Small Business Association. Many groups are concerned about their parents and their grandparents. Really any of us who are going to live longer than seven years need to be concerned about what is happening with Medicare, because it is going to be coming up very soon if we do not do something about it. So that is why we think it is very important that we get this plan in place. I have some quotes that came out of the Washington Post. Some people do not think the Washington Post is the right newspaper to quote, but on September 15th, this was a lead editorial. It is what the Washington Post has to say about the Republican Medicare plan. These are direct quotes. ``Congressional Republicans have confounded the skeptics,'' the first one says, meaning we have come up with a plan when they did not think the Republicans could come up with a plan. ``It is credible.'' You have heard a whole hour before where there is a lack of credibility for this plan. The Washington Post thinks this plan is credible. ``Its gutsy.'' We are willing to go out and change the problem, preserve and protect the plan. ``It addresses a genuine problem that is only going to get worse.'' Well, the time to address it is now. I have several others with me here today that are going to be talking with us about the Medicare program, preserving and protecting the Medicare program, and I would like to start with the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Saxby Chambliss.

Mr. TIAHRT. So they are, in fact, using the tax dollars from people, in my case, the fourth district of Kansas, and they are trying to disrupt the plans to preserve and protect Medicare. So that is kind of like trying to push the system into bankruptcy. I am having a hard time understanding what motivation one would have to push Medicare into bankruptcy.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, this weekend I spoke with my parents, and they are very concerned about the bickering that is going on over Medicare. This morning, in honor of the World War II veterans, we heard Senator Inouye ask that we work together to attack our common problems here in America. Well, Mr. Speaker, here are the facts on Medicare: The President's board of trustees has told us that by 2002 Medicare will be bankrupt. The Republicans have a plan to preserve and protect that program. The plan includes the fact that no senior will be required to give up their Medicare benefits, that the payments will go from $4,800 per year per beneficiary this year up to $6,700 per year per beneficiary. They will also offer options to seniors for other types of Medicare plans. Mr. Speaker, some Members of Congress would try to scare our seniors into supporting opposition to this plan. It is a good plan. I request the seniors in America to call their Congressman and support the Republican plan to preserve and protect Medicare.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is a question of priorities, which I think is what the gentlewoman did say here. Even in our rural areas we have the information network of Kansas, where we have tied together through electronic means the school systems, but it is done, again, without Federal tax dollars. I think what would better secure the future for these children is balancing the budget so they have a strong economy to grow into. That is why I oppose this amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying that the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] is probably a better advocate for the Secretary of State than he is for the Secretary of the Department of Energy. I do think that there is a significant difference between these two amendments, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Wisconsin. On one hand, one requires a recommendation or a report, and that is the Richardson amendment. The other one, the so-called Roemer amendment, does require action. I think that the downsizing is a topic that has often plagued the private sector in America. In my own area, Wichita, KS, where the Boeing Co. has recently gone from 24,000 employees to 15,000 employees, that is a significant downsizing. Other companies like IBM, they have also had to face downsizing. What has occurred through the process is the establishment of priorities: What is the company in business for, what is important to the stockholders, and how can they best serve those stockholders. I think that the Roemer amendment does drive priorities by forcing a downsizing. I think that downsizing and the priorities establishment is something that has been lacking. I want to say Secretary O'Leary is, I think, on the right track to some degree, which is demonstrated in the Richardson amendment when it talks about the functions of the Board, on page 3, is to help sharpen the mission focus of the Department laboratories. That is a very good thing to do. However, the so-called Roemer amendment would be more effective in doing that because it does drive action for the reductions of 33 percent, so I think that most of us would prefer action over recommendations, and that is why I rise in opposition to the Richardson amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say Dr. Larry Reynolds has done a good job of establishing priorities at Dodge Edison school and he is teaching his children how to use the computer. They are very friendly with it, they are becoming more and more so, as are their parents. That is the biggest obstacle to getting people involved in the system, to overcome fear of computers. It is a matter of priorities. I think balancing the budget is also important. That is why I oppose this amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any question that it is important that children have access to information, and there is no question about whether they can get it through the Internet or some other forms. I think what is important is to find out that they have the ability to get on-line, and not be afraid of computers. Mr. Chairman, what they are doing in Wichita, in fact this week I was able to visit a charter school called the Dodge Edison school, where Dr. Larry Reynolds, in control of his budget, has provided computers not only for his students, but computers that can be [[Page H 9828]] checked out into their home, where they can tie into the Edison intermail, electronic mail, where they can learn about their ideas, they can communicate with the teachers, they can do their homework, they can look at what is on the schedule. All through the computerized system, they are learning the principles of using a computer that are absolutely necessary for the Internet, but it is not paid for by Federal tax dollars, it is paid for by local tax dollars, where it is a very important issue to them, so they have taken the resources and they have channeled them. I do not think it is necessary for them to take Federal tax dollars.

Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, Medicare is going broke by 2002, according to the President's board of trustees. If there is no balanced budget, if the budget was already balanced, and if no reduction in taxes were going to occur, Medicare is still going broke by 2002, according to the President's board of trustees. Last night I spoke with my mother, Marcy Tiahrt, who this month, September 17, turned 68. My father is 76. I want them to have the best, especially when it comes to Medicare. And after talking to them, I realized that some of the liberal opponents to Medicare were trying to scare them. I wondered, now, who would want to scare my parents and your parents and your grandparents? Would it be a spoiled child, or a mean-spirited person, or someone with very, very selfish interests? I do not know. But I do know that there is no shame on the floor of the House, and there is no credibility to those who would scare my parents and your parents and your grandparents to serve their selfish motives.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is a 1965 Blue Cross/Blue Shield program that was started by Lyndon Baines Johnson and is frozen in time. According to the President's board of trustees, it is going broke by 2002 and it does not matter if we had a balanced budget and we had no tax cuts, the plan is still going broke by 2002. Now, health care in the private sector has improved in the last 30 years, but Medicare is frozen in time. We have a plan not only to preserve and protect Medicare, but we are also going to allow additional options to seniors. We also have a increase in spending from $4,800 per year to $6,700 per year. Mr. Speaker, I think we not only need to have Medicare reform, but I think we need to have remedial math, too, because going from $4,700, excuse me $4,800 to $6,700 per year per beneficiary is an increase in spending and not a cut. I urge my fellow Congressmen to vote for Medicare reform.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend a few minutes this morning talking about a very important issue of preserving and protecting Medicare. I want to quote from the Los Angeles Times who printed just a week ago, ``the House GOP plan to save Medicare is a sensible start toward fixing a program whose costs are out of control.'' The Democrats are wrong to balk at the restraining of soaring costs of the popular Medicare Program. The current path doubles the program's budget every 7 years. It is not sustainable and they know it. Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on Medicare, and so I went back into my district during the August district work period and I got together 33 members of the health care industry, of people who were concerned about preserving and protecting Medicare, of people who were involved in taxpayer groups, the AARP, United Seniors Associates, and we got together and we met all morning at Wichita State University about what problems we were facing with Medicare and how we could best preserve and protect it, and today I have with me a copy of the draft report that we submitted and that I also used to testify before members of the Committee on Commerce; it is the subcommittee for the Committee on Ways and Means, in coming up with some solutions for preserving and protecting Medicare. Some of the ideas that we had that came out of the Fourth District of Kansas are now being implemented into the legislation. These members of this task force came to this meeting with three methods of preserving and protecting Medicare. We went around the room and we discussed each one of these solutions in depth. Mr. Speaker, I was expecting them to come scared because a lot of the rhetoric that has been said right here on the floor of the House, a lot that has been printed across through the elite media, and so I was somewhat anxious about the meeting, but when I got there, the people of America were not scared about losing Medicare. They were concerned, but they came with excellent ideas. They wanted to give the best ideas of Kansas to have them brought here, and some of the ideas came right out of the work force. A gentleman named Zim Zimmerman, who works for Evcon industries in Wichita, KS, one of the leading air-conditioner suppliers across the Nation. He was just 90 days away from retirement and he said, if I could just take my health care insurance as provided at Evcon and carry it on into retirement, I would be completely satisfied. Other seniors wanted to have the same system that is available to them now, Medicare. Some wanted a type of system that is a managed care system because it provided more alternatives to them, and some wanted medical savings accounts. Mr. Speaker, the legislation that is currently being drafted does keep our Nation's commitment to Medicare and it remains as an option to seniors, with no increase to copayments or deductibles. We also, in the legislation that we are right now pushing forward, allowing seniors the same health care choices that are available to others like Zim Zimmerman and other seniors in the Fourth District, and we came up with some good ideas on how to root out waste and fraud and abuse so that we can maximize the health care dollars that we are spending. We also have in this legislation ways of placing financial responsibility on those who can best afford it and try to provide the benefits to those who are truly in need without great demands on their financial responsibility. We also want to set up a guaranteed solvency through a budgetary fail-safe provision. As the task force discussed some of these problems, particularly in waste, fraud, and abuse, it was very apparent that fear has been used all across the Nation. In our report that was given to us by a gentleman who is administering a hospital in Halstead, KS, his name is Jeffrey Feeney, he used to work in a Florida hospital, and a physician came to him and said, I would like to use a room to talk with some of the seniors. And he says, well, what were you going to use the room for? He explained that the doctor was talking to the seniors about an autologous blood process by which he was parlaying the fear of seniors, the fear of contracting AIDS or other social STD or HIV infected blood through the process when they had surgery. They have to use others' bloods, so this autologous blood process, they would take their own blood, he would store it for them at no cost to them, and then in the future, in the event they needed blood, it would be available to them. Many of them would never need this blood. They would never have surgery, but yet he was being paid by Medicare on a daily basis for storing this blood. So he parlayed this fear into bilking the system out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. Speaker, when I think about what has happened here recently, even for my own parents, when people try to come in and try to use scare tactics, in Kansas we call that scams, and this is not Mediscam. We are talking about preserving and protecting Medicare. So, Mr. Speaker, as we submit this report and as we proceed with Medicare legislation, I hope that the American public will see that the loss of credibility for using scare tactics is more and more apparent and that the plans that we have forwarded as represented by the Los Angeles Times are going to be effective in preserving and protecting Medicare.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I want to express concern about a serious problem that is rapidly destroying the United States vital wheat gluten industry and has reverberating effects on U.S. agriculture. Wheat gluten is natural protein that is used principally for its cohesive qualities in bread products, especially in multigrain and high fiber breads. U.S. producers of this unique product are barely existing due to overwhelming competitive advantages that are allowing their counterparts in the European Union to seize an alarming share of the U.S. market. These advantages include European government incentives and a lopsided tariff system that heavily favors the European gluten industry. As U.S. production of wheat gluten declines, so does the requirement for domestically grown high protein wheat. This situation, therefore, threatens to wipe out a premium, value-added market that farmers in our country rely on. I urge immediate attention to this problem and call for strong efforts to resolve it before the American wheat gluten industry becomes extinct.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I stand in support of the Istook-McIntosh- Ehrlich grant reform amendment. This amendment in the Labor-HHS- Education appropriations bill would put a stop to the Federal Government subsidizing political advocacy groups. We want to stop the welfare for lobbyists. These are the groups that feed at the Government trough, complaining that if we take away their funds, we take away their first amendment rights. They call this the ``nonprofit gag order.'' They say, ``Without our advocacy voice, nonprofits will no longer be able to share their insights with policymakers.'' I tell my colleagues, there are plenty of advocacy groups and nonprofit educational research institutes who share insights without using taxpayers' dollars and without using your money. Besides that, constituents are free to visit or can come and call on me, or any of my fellow Congressmen, and share their thoughts; they just cannot send the phone bill or the airline bill to us and our neighbors. Madam Speaker, that is exactly what happens when we have welfare for lobbyists. I encourage my colleagues to pass the Istook-McIntosh- Ehrlich Federal grant reform amendment. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] for any closing remarks.