H 4528 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 3, 1995

the cost of Medicare and you are shifting it onto the backs of working people

who are already paying very substantial premiums for current Medicare recipients and for their future cost.

This kind of leads you to what happened yesterday when Senator DOLE

and Speaker GINGRICH called a news

conference to explain all this, and as

they found that they could not explain

it to the press, they finally just simply

walked out of the news conference.

They just walked off stage.

They called the news conference,

they said, ‘‘We want the news conference to explain to the American people how we are saving Medicare,’’ and

when they got into the news conference

a few minutes, they found out that

they could not explain it because the

numbers do not add up. They cannot

protect Social Security under their

plan or they cannot protect the balanced budget under their plan or they

cannot protect the tax cut under their

plan. So they simply in a huff walked

out of the room and said they would

get back to everyone later.

That is what the fear is about in the

country today, is that they will get

back to us later. I guess the new date

for the budget is on May 17, and at that

point then we will, I guess, be able to

unravel the puzzle here on how they

are going to meet the goal of the balanced budget which almost everybody

in the country believes should happen,

the goal of the tax cut which most of

the country thinks is kind of a luxury

when you are running a deficit of $250

to $300 billion a year, a $4 trillion national debt, to now borrow money to

give people a tax cut or borrow money

from the Social Security recipients to

give the people a tax cut.

This just no longer makes any kind

of economic sense, and looks very bad

both for the deficit, for Social Security

recipients, and eventually for low-income people who rely on the programs

that have already been cut.

I will be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman

for yielding.

I wanted to focus on one point you

had made about the Republicans saying

they would not touch Social Security,

but what these Medicare cuts will do.

It would reduce half of the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment for millions and millions of our senior citizens. In fact, 2 million Medicare beneficiaries will have all or most of their

cost of living adjustments consumed by

the Republican beneficiary cost increases.

Mr. MILLER of California. So in fact

what you are saying is when they get a

COLA increase, the vast amount of

that COLA will simply be absorbed in

additional Medicare costs to the Social

Security recipient?

Ms. PELOSI. Yes. It is a back door

way of cutting Social Security.

MORE ON MEDICARE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DURBIN] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I would

like to follow up on the earlier discussion by the gentleman and the gentlewoman from California about Medicare.

I think it is critically important for

us to focus on the fact that when we

are talking about Medicare, we are not

necessarily just confining our interest

to the health care of our parents and

grandparents. Some of us who are advancing in age look to Medicare just a

few years down the line to take care of

them, too.

But the bottom line is that Medicare

and Medicaid, the other Government

health care program, are major sources

of funding for hospitals across the

United States. In my small-town district in Illinois, I have many, many

hospitals, and I find that 60 percent to

80 percent of the revenue coming into

those hospitals comes from those two

Government programs, Medicare and

Medicaid.

So when I hear suggestions made, as

I have from some Republican leaders

who are trying to come up with a budget, that they want to make cuts of billions of dollars in Medicare funds in

out years, it not only should cause concern among seniors and people soon to

be seniors as to whether they will have

to pay more out of pocket, it also

raises a serious question as to whether

or not these hospitals will receive

enough revenue to keep their doors

open.

Those who visit with the hospital administrators and boards know that

there have been dramatic changes in

these hospitals in rural and small town

America over the last 10 years. Most of

them have downsized, there are fewer

patient beds, there is more outpatient

service, and they depend dramatically

on Medicare and Medicaid to continue

to keep their doors open.

We just finished last week in Ames,

IA, a rural conference with President

Clinton and Vice President Gore talking about the future of small-town

America. A lot of concentration was

put on bringing new jobs and keeping

businesses in rural America. What we

found is that when the Chamber of

Commerce or the local boosters want

to bring in a business or keep one, they

have to answer some basic questions.

The first question is: Do you have a

hospital? How many doctors do you

have?

So when we talk about changing a

Federal program for medical care, reducing the expenditure and literally

threatening the bottom line of rural

and small-town hospitals, the ripple effect goes far beyond the jobs at that

hospital. It goes far beyond whether or

not that ambulance has to drive 5 minutes or 50 minutes with a patient who

is in critical need. It goes to the question of whether or not the community

survives.

Members of Congress fight battles

day in and day out to keep Federal facilities open in small towns. We know

how important they are. There is nothing more important than a hospital.

Absolutely nothing. In rural America,

it is critically important because we

have an older population. Many of

them are in farming, the most dangerous occupation in America, and a

lot of them get involved in automobile

accidents in rural areas at higher

speeds with more injuries.

So all these debates that we hear on

Capitol Hill about budget resolutions

and the future of Medicare have dramatic importance to people living in

small town America. They had better

tune in.

Let me tell you, also, as I listen to

this debate, I am really troubled. The

Republicans yesterday, Mr. DOLE, Mr.

GINGRICH, tossed down the gauntlet and

said, ‘‘President Clinton, why haven’t

you told us anything about health care

reform?’’

Excuse me? This President was here 2

years ago with a proposal on health

care reform. It was one that was detailed. Perhaps it was overly bureaucratic, maybe it was too large in its

scope, but he accepted the challenge

long before they issued it. He came to

us and said, ‘‘Let’s look at the integrated health care system of America

and how we can help Medicare, Medicaid, uninsured people, and the private

sector,’’ and it fell on deaf ears.

The insurance industry ran over him

like a steamroller, and that was the

end of the debate. Now the Republican

leaders have discovered the issue again

because the problem is still there. The

problem is there in terms of human

terms and in terms of budget terms.

I sincerely hope that we can come to

some sort of bipartisan dialog on this.

But I think honestly before that occurs

that the Republican leaders, particularly those in the House, are going to

have to basically admit the reality

that they cannot have a tax cut package which adds more to our Nation’s

deficit at the time that they are talking about cutting a program as critical

as Medicare.

I think if they drop that whole Republican tax bill and then say, ‘‘Let’s

come to the table,’’ we have got a real

opportunity for bipartisanship. But

why in the world should my senior citizens, should my small towns and

should my neighbors lose a community

hospital critical for the future of that

community in order to give tax breaks

to the wealthiest people in America

under the Republican Contract With

America? That does not compute. You

cannot give a tax credit large enough

to a family to make up for the loss of

a hospital when there is serious need,

when that family needs that medical

care.

I yield to the gentlewoman from

California.
May 3, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4529

Ms. PELOSI. I appreciate the gentleman’s comments about what it means

to hospitals, both rural and urban, and

why we need to address the budget seriously without taking out all these hundreds of billions of dollars for tax cuts

for the wealthiest.

I wanted to point out that distinction again, though, between tax cuts

for the wealthiest and who is paying

the price, out-of-pocket cost to senior

citizens.

Right now the Urban Institute says

that seniors spend a staggering 21 percent of their incomes to pay for out-ofpocket health care costs. That is now.

If the Republicans go through with

their tax cuts and take it out of Medicare, as we said earlier in the special

order of the gentleman from California,

this will again take it out of the pockets of seniors, a back door way of reducing their Social Security benefits

by having them pay in some cases 100

percent of the cost-of-living adjustment and in many cases a majority of

the cost-of-living adjustment.

So we absolutely must recognize who

is paying for whose benefit. The senior

citizens, the most vulnerable in our

country, their health care benefits,

out-of-pocket costs, will be used to pay

for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. That just cannot be right.

Let’s all be of good faith in this.

Eliminate the tax break from this

equation. Let’s get down to talking

about making Medicare solvent and

doing it in a way that is respectful of

the limitations of income of our senior

citizens.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I want to

add something.

We are in a period of sacrifice. We

will have to cut back on Federal spending. We are asking people to accept

that reality. But think about some of

the people affected by this debate.

Some of the people literally dependent

on Medicare and Medicaid are in nursing homes, totally unable to take care

of themselves. They have exhausted all

of their savings. They are dependent on

Government programs and what their

families can come up with. As we increase their expenses, there is nowhere

for them to turn to make up the difference.

INTRODUCTION OF THE PROFESSIONAL TRADE SERVICE CORPS

fACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. KAPTUR] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I agree

with my colleagues who were on the

floor here of the absolute necessity of

the United States balancing its budget

and putting our financial house in

order. But this afternoon, I want to

talk to you about a different deficit,

the trade deficit, and a piece of legislation I am introducing today, the Professional Trade Service Corps Act,

which is essential to America correcting that deficit as well.

U.S. trade policy for the last two decades under both Democratic and Republican Presidents has been a major

net loser for our Nation, its businesses

and our workers. While some individual

corporations and certain shareholders

have benefited, overall the productive

wealth of America has been diminished, as ballooning trade deficits have

fueled the movement of our dollars offshore, as our citizens bought more and

more imported goods coming into this

country rather than our exports being

sold abroad.

Trade deficits represent a serious

decapitalization of this country, with

more and more of our people’s money

moving abroad to pay for the goods

they are buying from foreign importers, while foreign capital pours into

this country. The economic accounts

tell the story.

In 1980, our country was a net lender

to the world, as foreign interests owed

us more than $400 billion.

b 1230

Today, however, the United States

owes foreign creditors nearly $800 billion. We are now a net debtor nation.

As foreign imports, including many

from U.S.-based firms that have escaped offshore, surge into our country,

jobs that should have been created

here, good-paying jobs, are now being

located elsewhere in the world.

Furthermore, the value of our dollar

continues its decade-long decline as

U.S. dollars flood into the international market to pay for the goods

that we are buying from other places.

Last year our country racked up yet

another record deficit with the world

in merchandise trade of over $166 billion. For January of this year, the

United States set a monthly record deficit of $12 billion more in just 1 month,

and keep in mind $1 billion of debt in

trade translates into 23,000 lost jobs in

this country.

These deficits represent real lost

jobs, stagnant wages, and decreased

living standards as your dollar buys

less in this country.

You might be watching the trade

talks that are going on with Japan

right now. Last year we had over $66

billion in trade deficit with Japan,

more of their goods coming in here

than our goods being able to get into

that market, because in fact it is a

closed market, and if you just look at

the automotive segment of that deficit,

which represents half of our deficit

with Japan, if we could solve that problem we could build in this country 100

factories, each employing over 5,000

workers, 100 factories, each employing

over 5,000 workers, if we only solved

half the trade problem that we have

with Japan.

In short, these deficits hurt every

American in our communities, and

that is why today I am introducing the

Professional Trade Service Corps bill

to upgrade U.S. trade negotiating functions through creation of a specialized

tenured body of trained professional

trade negotiators for this country. The

Corps’ mission would be to conduct

U.S. trade negotiations and streamline

the trade functions of this Government.

The Professional Trade Service Corps

incorporates a three-tier strategy to

address the need for more skilled and

committed U.S. trade negotiators.

First the proposal would accomplish

that goal by creating an elite professional body of American negotiators to

address the issues of short tenure and

the revolving door among our trade negotiators.

The average trade negotiators for our

country stay in their position 2 years.

The average negotiator for Japan stays

in his position 30 years, speaks several

languages, and has worked in various

countries around the world.

Our bill would also establish a Trade

Services Institute to train our current

and future U.S. trade negotiators in

the practices, culture, and customs of

our trade competitors.

Then finally the bill restricts Trade

Service Corps officials as well as other

senior members of the executive and

legislative branches from representing

or advising foreign interests immediately after leaving Government service.

U.S. trade negotiators serve on the

front lines of today’s battle to win

market share in the increasingly competitive international marketplace. To

win, our country must have highly

trained, professional, tenured, and

committed trade negotiators with integrity at the table negotiating the

best terms for America’s workers and

America’s businesses.

I ask my colleagues to please join me

in cosponsoring the Professional Trade

Service Corps Act. Put this country on

an equal footing at the international

bargaining tables that control our destiny in terms of jobs and development

in this country.

FAIR TRADE WITH JAPAN

f(Mr. MCINTOSH asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MCINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, today,

officials from the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office are meeting with

Japanese officials to address the current trade imbalance in auto parts between our two countries. I hope their

efforts are successful.

Now, I am an advocate for free trade.

For countries to prosper in today’s

global market place, they must export

and import freely. The deal is simple.

It’s a two-way street.

Unfortunately, when it comes to

Japan, our open market-policies have

not been reciprocated. Hard-working

American autoworkers and manufacturers of automotive parts in Indiana

and throughout America have faced unfair barriers to their products. Last