```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4905-H4906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         MEDICARE: CUT OR LOSE?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader probably 
has a point when he was saying--excuse me, I mean the distinguished 
minority leader, force of habit--Mr. Gephardt, was giving a speech a 
few minutes ago saying that Medicare is going to be cut. And I think to 
some degree that you can argue that there is going to be certainly a 
modification of Medicare, and you may want to say that that is a cut. 
But I would say, what is better, modifying Medicare or losing Medicare? 
It will be broke under the current Medicare system in 6 years. It is 
not a matter of let us keep business as usual and avoid changing 
Medicare. We have got to do that.
  You know, I wish that the critics, and most of the critics right now 
are coming from the minority side of the aisle, would enter into the 
solution as freely as they have entered into the criticism of the 
Republican plan. If they could enter the debate with facts and 
substance, instead of just with tactics and strategy, it would be so 
helpful. We need the help of the leadership and the wisdom of the 
Democrat Party.
  We on the Republican side would be shortchanging ourselves if we said 
we had all the answers. And that is why our Founding Fathers had a two 
party system. We need the ideas from both sides of the aisle in order 
to come up with the solution.
  The fact is, though, that the Clinton cabinet is the one who said 
Medicare is going to go broke in 6 years. The Clinton cabinet also has 
come out with statistics showing that baby boomers are going to be 
retiring in the year 2002, the Social Security trust fund runs out of 
money in the year 2030, and these are huge problems.
  I yield to my friend from Michigan, Mr. Smith.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. 
You know, what is so very interesting is that it was 2 years ago that 
the trustees of the Medicare trust fund came to Congress and said, 
``This trust fund is going broke, and it will be out of money by the 
year 2000.'' This time they came back and said it might last until 
2002.
  But the fact is, it is a political hot potato. For the last 2 years, 
with the existing majority in Congress and the President, they did not 
want to deal with it because they knew it left a target. They were 
politically vulnerable.
  Republicans met and said, do we want to save Medicare? If we do, are 
we 
[[Page H4906]] willing to take the hits that we knew were going to come 
from the other side of the aisle? ``Oh boy, are you guys cruel and 
unreasonable.'' The fact is, there is going to be less money coming 
into the Medicare trust fund in the next 2 years than the payouts. 
There is a little reserve there in part A that is going to allow us to 
continue until 2002, and then it is bankrupt.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield back, what is bothering me 
is we still seem to have folks on the other side of the aisle debating 
that Medicare is fine and dandy and there are no problems. We can go on 
ad infinitum with Medicare.
  We cannot do that. We are driving straight into a brick wall that we 
will collide with a bus full of senior citizens in 7 years, period.
  The tragedy of this is look at the wisdom on the Democrat side. I am 
envious as I look at the Democrat Party. They have a lot of talent and 
brains over there. I would like, as the Republican Party, to recruit 
some of their folks. Some of the people I
 would rather not recruit. I am sure there are folks over here they 
would rather not recruit. But good gracious, the wisdom of getting the 
two parties together to come up with a solution for Medicare, would 
that not be the responsible thing to do for senior citizens? We are 
wrapping ourselves around momma's bath robe in the name of Mother's 
Day. We have heard the speeches for the last 40 minutes. What my momma 
told me to do is put aside party differences and do what is right. That 
is what we need to do.

  Medicare needs to be reformed. The Clinton administration, Senator 
Kerrey, many Democrats, have come out front and said that. Republicans 
have certainly said that. Take it a step further: To reform it, the 
American people need the Democrat and the Republican Parties working 
together on this.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I was just saying on reform, testimony before 
our Committee on the Budget indicated there was $40 billion of fraud 
and abuse in the system. So, for a start, last year we had a proposal 
by the administration that the Federal Government should take over all 
of the medical health care needs in this country.
  The fact is that we have seen Medicaid and Medicare grow at the rate 
of 10 and 12 percent a year. The private practice health care has been 
6 and 7 percent. In fact, last year it was about 4 percent, with many 
parts of the country being zero. The private sector is growing at 4 
percent, the public sector, where we have Medicaid and Medicare, where 
the Government is responsible, has been growing at 10 and 12 percent. 
To say it is a solution to have the Federal Government take over 
everything does not jibe. We have got to do something the corporations 
and the rest of America are doing. We have got to make smart shoppers 
out of every American, including senior Americans.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think the gentleman ran out of time a little while 
ago. I wanted to hear about your charts. Alice Rivlin said today there 
are other places to cut in the budget. She said where the Republican 
Party was cutting was idiotic. I am sure there are things that the 
administration does that the Republican Party and Americans think are 
idiotic. Has the administration cut the budget in their proposal, in 
the President's budget proposal?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Kingston, what I learned is I am not a 
better number drawer when I have extra time than I am with short time. 
All this says is that the only budget that--and I do not want to be 
partisan, but that the President has sent the Congress is figured in 
the same way as the Republicans are figuring their budget as far as 
deficits. These are the deficits that are going to exist under the 
President's budget that he sent us about 8 weeks ago, and the 
Republican budget passed out of the House, very similar to the one 
passed out of the Senate.
  In year 1996, the deficit under the President's plan is $211 billion, 
$156 for the Republican. Every year you see our deficit keeps going 
down and down. We are trying to brag about it. We are saying for the 
first time since 1969, the end figure is zero as far as the deficit. 
The zero at the end is the fact we are balancing revenues with 
expenses. The projection down here for the President is going up on the 
deficit in those out years.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The figures are right. It is atrocious, your momma is 
ashamed of you. But if I read that correctly, in the year 2001, the 
President's budget has a $276 billion deficit. The Kasich Committee on 
the Budget proposal has a $108 billion deficit. The year 2002, the 
President is at a $318 billion deficit. We are at a $15 billion 
surplus.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. We are actually starting to pay back some of 
this huge, gigantic, $6 trillion debt that the kids and grandkids are 
going to owe at that time if we do not change.

                          ____________________
```