H 5380 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 23, 1995

He wants to work hand in glove with

the Clinton administration in these efforts. I will do all I can as one Member

of this House of Representatives to

stop this disastrous policy before it is

extended any further, in fact, to repeal

the past mistakes we have made, including the North American FreeTrade Agreement.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

TERM LIMITS

fthe Speaker’s announced policy of May

12, 1995, the gentleman from Nebraska

[Mr. CHRISTENSEN] is recognized during

morning business for 3 minutes.

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker,

yesterday the American people witnessed our system of Government in

action when our unelected, unrepresentative, life-tenured Supreme Court

by 1 vote struck down term-limit laws

in 23 States. In an 88-page dissent, Justice Thomas said: ‘‘Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each

state of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates

who seek to represent them in Congress.’’ The Constitution is silent on

this question.

Today’s liberal New York Times has

an article in here. It says: ‘‘Congress

Members Off Hook on Re-election.’’

Wrong. First of all, the author of this

article goes on to state: ‘‘By nullifying

term limits imposed by the States, the

Supreme Court in effect handed each

Member of Congress a ‘get out of jail

free’ card.’’

I guess one thing that we learned is

that yesterday’s elections do matter.

President Clinton, elected by a mere

plurality in 1992, appointed two members to this high court that decided

they knew best. Both Justice Breyer

and Justice Ginsburg said that States

do not know right from wrong, that the

Supreme Court knows how to set the

law better when they voted against 23

States.

Second, people do matter. Last fall

the American people sent a clear message that they were tired of business as

usual in Washington. They gave the

Republicans a majority in this body for

the first time in 40 years. This new majority is solidly in favor of term limits.

While we are still a few votes shy, in

1996 the American people will give us

the votes to enact term limits as the

American people want, nearly 78 percent of the American people favoring

term limits for their Representatives.

Some have said that term limits are

now dead, and I am here to tell you

they are dead wrong. Whether it is the

McCollum bill that we bring up in 1997,

which enacts a 12-year blanket term

limit, or whether it is the Hilleary 12-

year bill that allows States to have

lower term limits, if they so wish, one

of them will come to the House under

House Resolution 1 as the Speaker has

promised.

We are going to work tirelessly until

we can enact the will of the people. We

are going to pass a constitutional

amendment that will put an end to career politicians once and for all.

fMEDICAID

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the Speaker’s announced policy of May

12, 1995, the gentleman from Illinois

[Mr. DURBIN] is recognized during

morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I would

like to share with the people who are

listening this morning an experience

which I had in my district yesterday

which I hope that all of you will reflect

on because it is the outgrowth of a vote

last week on the floor of this House of

Representatives which could have an

impact on every family in the United

States.

What happened last week is that this

House of Representatives passed a

budget resolution. That is a spending

plan for the next year. In fact, in this

case it was a spending plan for the next

7 years. Those who supported that

budget resolution, I was not among

those, suggested that we could reach a

balanced budget by the year 2002 if we

have certain cuts in spending. And

they proposed those cuts as part of the

package.

The reason that I opposed that plan

as presented by Speaker GINGRICH and

his Republican allies was the fact that

it included a substantial tax cut, primarily to the wealthiest people in this

country. In order to pay for that tax

cut, it cut many of these spending programs more deeply. In fact, the programs that are hit the hardest are the

health care programs, Medicare and

Medicaid.

What the Republicans have done is to

create a piggy bank with cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to pay for their tax

cut package. And that is the part that

I find objectionable. This is not a solely partisan view, although most Democrats share my point of view. In fact, in

the Senate, the Republican leaders

there have many misgivings as well as

to whether we should be enacting a tax

cut in the wake of our need to bring

our budget into balance.

But the reason I come to the floor

this morning is to reflect on the impact of cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.

As I look about the gallery here, I see

people of varying ages, from youngsters on school trips to those who are

clearly retired, perhaps here on a holiday or vacation to witness this House

of Representatives and its proceedings.

The irony is that each person here has

an interest in this issue because it affects every single one of us.

Let me explain. Right now the Medicaid Program in America is generally

viewed as a welfare program. It is not

a welfare program. It is a health care

program. A third of the recipients

under the Medicaid Program are, in

fact, poor people receiving health care

through it. but another third are disabled people, folks who because of mental or physical disability qualify for

this Medicaid to pay their medical

bills. And the final third represent people, our parents, grandparents who are

in nursing homes and other facilities

who do not have the resources left in

their savings accounts to take care of

themselves.

So when you say we are going to cut

Medicaid, you are not just hitting socalled welfare low-income families; you

are also hitting the elderly and the disabled.

As I went and visited nursing homes

in my district yesterday, it was an eye

opener to talk about what it will mean

if the Republicans prevail and cut $188

billion out of Medicaid. It means less

money coming from the Federal Government through these families into

nursing home care.

What will be the ultimate result of

that? Well, I can tell you, it is not very

promising; what is involved here, unfortunately, is that a lot of people in

nursing homes today literally, literally

survive because of Medicaid payments.

If those payments are cut, it raises a

serious question about what happens to

these people.

I guess even equally important for

the younger folks in the audience here,

the responsibility is then their family’s. If the Government does not make

an adequate payment to the nursing

home, who then is going to pay the bill

for the parent or grandparent there

who needs a helping hand?

This, I think, is a serious personal

concern for all of us. Right now Medicaid pays one-half of all nursing home

care in the United States. If we take

that and put it in perspective, when we

cut back in Medicaid, we are putting a

real burden on an industry that is labor

intensive, and frankly we want to do a

very good qualify job. If they cut back

in the quality of service, every single

one of us is concerned that that elderly

person who needs help the most will be

put in a perilous situation.

So that is why I opposed the Republican budget resolution. Let me say in

a spirit at this time of bipartisanship,

there are some things I think we can

do that came out of a meeting yesterday. For one thing, we have to encourage more people to buy what is known

as long-term care insurance. When you

are my age or younger, you do not

think about whether you are ever

going to be in a nursing home, but

frankly we have all got to be thinking

about the possibility that that could

happen some day and we may need insurance coverage to protect us.

We have got to encourage more

American families to build this into

their health insurance portfolio, not

just the insurance for hospitals and

doctors but also for long-term care. I

will be working on legislation to try to

encourage families to do that, to perhaps provide a tax deduction to provide

for long-term care insurance as a solution to part of this problem.