May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5581

just passed the House has a September

reporting date for the committees of

jurisdiction to act on Medicare; and

third, the budget resolution must be

conferenced with the Senate budget

resolution, which has not yet been

passed.

It seems that the real purpose of this

motion to instruct is to once again try

to steer us away from the seriousness

of the task ahead of us: To ensure that

the Medicare Program is preserved for

current and future beneficiaries. I

should not have to remind Members

that the trustees for the Medicare hospital insurance and supplementary

medical insurance trust funds are facing significant financial problems in

both the short term and the long term.

Under the best estimates of the

trustees, the hospital insurance trust

fund will be exhausted by 2002. In short,

the hospital insurance side of the program will not be able to pay its bills

because of exploding part A expenditures. Part A is described by the trustees as a program ‘‘severely out of financial balance.’’

Not only is the HI trust fund financially out of balance, but spending

growth by the supplementary medical

insurance [SMI] trust fund is also a

concern because the SMI rate of

growth is unsustainable. SMI cost

growth directly affects Medicare beneficiary part B premiums as well as general revenues from which the largest

share of SMI costs are financed.

In 1995, premiums paid by enrollees

will finance only about 28 percent of

annual costs, according to the 1995

trustees’ report. Over the next decade,

the contribution from general revenues

to the SMI trust fund will increase

from $46 billion in 1995 to $151 billion in

2004, for an average annual growth rate

of over 14 percent.

We are deeply concerned about the

future of the Medicare Program. We

strongly believe any solution to this

crisis must be addressed in a bipartisan

manner and we are disappointed by the

administration’s repeated refusal to

join this effort. We are particularly

alarmed that the President is ignoring

the strongest possible warnings from

the very individuals he appointed to

safeguard the Medicare Program since

4 of 6 trustees are administration officials.

The end result of this instruction

will be to put in jeopardy the MediGap

policies of the 450,000 Medicare beneficiaries currently enrolled in Medicare

Select plans. This program is very popular among senior citizens with good

reason. In August 1994, Consumer Reports rated the top MediGap insurers

nationwide. Eight out of ten of the top

rated 15 MediGap plans were Medicare

Select plans. During our Health Subcommittee hearing on Medicare Select,

the National Association of Insurance

Commissioners testified in favor of the

program and stated that out of the 10

Medicare Select States that report into

the NAIC’s complaint data system,

there were only 9 Medicare Select complaints last year.

This instruction is simply a dilatory

tactic and should be rejected. Members

should think seriously before they cast

a vote eliminating the Medicare Select

Program.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. STARK], the ranking member

of the Subcommittee on Health and

Environment of the Committee on

Ways and Means, a Member of this

house who has worked long and hard to

try to protect our Medicare beneficiaries.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

A message in writing from the Presifdent of the United States was communicated to the House by Mr. Edwin

Thomas, one of his secretaries.

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON

H.R. 483, MEDICARE SELECT EXfPANSION

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, we have

heard today about ideas and proposals

being proposed. But these same proponents of these ideas have put forth a

budget that destroys children in this

country, destroys clean air, destroys

safe water, reduces law enforcement,

all in the name of providing tax cuts to

the rich. All I can say is, please leave

our seniors alone.

The gentleman who preceded me a

few speakers ago in the well, who

chairs the Subcommittee on Health

and the Environment of the Committee

on Commerce, has already cut $84 billion out of the trust fund for Medicare

just to give tax cuts to the very rich.

Do not help us anymore, Mr. Chairman.

You have done enough harm already.

Medicare Select is nothing but a political payoff to big insurance companies. Prudential Life Insurance Co. has

already been convicted of stealing billions of dollars from seniors. Golden

Rule Insurance Co. is under more litigation with State insurance commissioners than any other insurance company in the country. The staff who

drafted this silly bill was paid hundreds

of thousands of dollars by the insurance industry last year, and they are

telling you they are here to help seniors?

Mr. Speaker, do not believe that.

They have already cut $3,000 out of seniors’ pockets by changing the taxes

that they will pay, to pay for their

silly budget which is designed only to

give tax cuts to the rich.

So, yes, let us balance the budget, let

us help kids become healthy, let us

have education and a clean environment, but do not louse up Medicare

with silly ideas that are untried, that

are just a payoff to the major insurance companies in this country, that

will do nothing but deny medical benefits to the seniors who are already

happy with their health care. This is

free enterprise to pay off Republican

campaign contributions run amok.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield

such time as she may consume to the

gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.

JOHNSON], the prime author of this legislation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.

Speaker, I rise in opposition to this

motion to instruct conferees. We have

35 days left before this program expires. We have 20 legislative days left

before this program expires.

The preceding speaker talked about

this being a payoff to big insurance

companies. It is absolutely true that

insurance companies are in the business of providing insurance, and that

people buy insurance voluntarily and

because they value it, because it gives

them some security in their lives.

My interests and my concern is not

the insurance companies. My interests

and my concern are the seniors of

America, the people. And people who

buy Medicare Select policies are getting more health care at a lower cost.

That is why they buy Medicare Select

policies rather than some other

MediGap policy.

In some instances the premiums are

40 percent less. If you are living on a

fixed income, Mr. Speaker, that matters. Not only are the premiums less,

but they get coverage for annual

medicals, sometimes for pharmaceuticals, prescription medications, for

some vision, some dental.

People are buying these policies voluntarily, and because they offer them

more at a cheaper price. Our job is not

to steer seniors in this market. Our job

is only to assure that there is a market

that offers choice.

The Medicare Select policies are regulated exactly like every other

MediGap policy. These policies are not

out there in the market with any less

government oversight than any other

MediGap policy.

b 1040

So let us get on with this conference,

let us make sure that this option for

seniors in America that offers more

health care for less dollars does not expire, let us try this time to meet our

responsibilities, to renew the law without a gap.

Let me just add one other comment.

My colleagues on the other side have

said that we are cutting Medicare, and

somehow we should not renew this program because we are cutting Medicare.

Now remember, it is the trustees,

that is the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Labor, other members of the

President’s Cabinet who are saying

Medicare is going bankrupt, it goes

broke next year. That means it takes

in less than it is going to pay out and

it goes bankrupt, that means it eats all

of its assets in 6 more years. So it is

not the Republicans who are saying

this. It is the Republicans who are saying we are going to do something about

it, we are going to protect seniors in

America, preserve Medicare. Under no,
H 5582 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 25, 1995

no scenario are we cutting spending. In

fact, Medicare in the last 7 years for

seniors in America spent out $844 million. In the next 7 years if we reform

Medicare to serve seniors it will pay

out $1.6 billion, almost twice as much.

So, the figures are simply there. We

are going to increase spending on Medicare and we are going to increase the

amount we spend per beneficiary, not

only more beneficiaries but per beneficiary, and we are going to do it in a

way that will provide seniors better

quality health care.

Let us not mix debates here. Let us

focus this debate on simply preserving

a right, a choice for seniors in America, preserving their access to a plan

that offers in the 15 States it is available more health care benefits at a

lower cost.

This is only about preserving existing choice for seniors, existing access

to cost-effective care, and I urge the

body, remember, almost everyone in

this body voted for this bill when it

went through, so vote against the motion to recommit, to support timely action on behalf of America’s seniors.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. KENNELLY].

Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I support providing Medicare beneficiaries

with more choices, and that is why I

worked with the previous speaker to

back this legislation, the Medicare Select Program. It does provide more

choice for seniors.

However, it is absolutely impossible

to have this debate this morning and

talk about choice and not talk about

the budget that was recently passed on

this floor.

The cold facts are that $283 billion in

Medicare reductions were contained in

that budget and will increase premiums, copayments, and deductions,

and that will leave seniors with a

choice of what they spend their money

on, their fixed-income money for many

of them. That budget we passed drastically reduces Medicare reimbursement for doctors and hospitals because

that is a fact. When you are reducing

an increase by $283 billion and as more

and more doctors become unwilling to

accept a Medicare assignment, we will

reduce choice for seniors. Even though

Select Medicare that we are talking

about today increases the choice, the

fact of the matter of the budget we recently passed decreases the choice.

Along with this, the budget would

also address nursing care coverage.

Once more, again, seniors will be faced

with diminishing choices on how to

cope with enormous costs.

I support Medicare Select because it

provides more choice. Everybody in

this body wanted to do this for the seniors. Unfortunately this legislation follows on the heels of a budget that

could do more to limit choices for Medicare beneficiaries than any piece of

legislation ever passed on this floor.

So yes, we are talking about two

things, but the fact of the matter is

you cannot be in a vacuum when you

talk about Medicare; it is too big and

too important. And of course we are all

going to differ, but the fact of the matter is, with the budget, choices will be

limited.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4

minutes to the gentleman from Texas,

Mr. SAM JOHNSON.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr.

Speaker, I rise in opposition to this

motion to instruct. It frankly puts the

cart before the horse. This is an

amendment to the current Medicare

Program and wholly inappropriate to

require the conferees to resolve differences in the context of contemplated changes to Medicare.

We all know the House-passed budget

calls for reduction in the rate of

growth of the Medicare Program. What

we do not know, however, is how it will

be achieved.

It is interesting to me that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DOGGETT]

showed us a blank chart. You know

what? The blank is in the White House,

not in the House of Representatives.

The blank chart has been filled up

with Republican ideas and I will tell

you what, before we are through, we

are going to have Medicare fixed, it is

going to be a super program for all our

seniors, and we are not trying to take

away from the seniors. We are trying

to help the seniors protect the program

and make it something that will be

viable in the future.

It is interesting also to note that the

gentleman from California [Mr. WAXMAN] and the gentleman from Texas

[Mr. DOGGETT] both voted for this Medicare Select when it was passed on the

floor by overwhelming vote. It is interesting to note that the gentleman from

Texas [Mr. DOGGETT] has now changed

his mind. It makes one wonder how can

you have convictions on anything and

vote on the floor in a different manner.

Medicare is going broke. I think the

gentleman from Florida [Mr. BILIRAKIS] has said that, all our speakers

have said it, it is going broke in the

year 2002, and there is no way that this

Government can pay anyone over 65

once that trust fund is to zero. The

bills will not be paid. That is why Medicare needs to be fixed and fixed in a

hurry and that is our goal, our aim,

and it has been transferred to a scare

tactic for the seniors of this Nation.

We are not trying to scare anybody, we

are just telling you the facts. The

President’s own people reported that

Medicare is broke, going broke, and we

are going to fix it and we are going to

make it a system that is viable for all

Americans, forever I hope.

I would just like to add that as of October 1994, approximately 450,000 beneficiaries were enrolled in Medicare Select. While a majority are covered

through Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans,

approximately 50 companies offer Medicare Select products. Medicare beneficiaries are old and these policies save

10 to 37 percent in premiums over traditional fee-for-service MediGap policies. And in August 1994, Consumer Reports rated the top MediGap insurance

nationwide; 8 out of the top rated 15

MediGap plans were Medicare Select.

Failure to pass this legislation will

lead to higher premiums for enrollees

and the potential withdrawal of insurers from the market, meaning our seniors in that case would not have a

choice of plans.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. STUPAK].

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, we are

here talking about Medicare Select at

the same time the Republican leadership has passed a bill making unprecedented cuts to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs which will result in limited access to or complete elimination

of rural health care. The cuts of $250

billion by the Republicans are the

deepest spending reductions in the 30-

year history of the health industry for

our senior citizens. In fact, Medicare

cuts hurt not just seniors but everybody, including our small hospitals.

Nearly 10 million Medicare beneficiaries live in rural America where

there is often only a single hospital in

the county. These rural hospitals tend

to be small and serve primarily Medicare patients. Significant cuts to the

Medicare Program will force many

rural hospitals to cut back on the services they offer, or they will have to

turn to the taxpayers for assistance in

order to survive.

Most significantly, these devastating

cuts would force many rural hospitals

to close their doors completely. This

would mean that many of us will have

no hospitals to turn to in a time of

medical crisis. Medicare Select, coupled with the cuts, will require increasing the cost of not just Medicare, but

also the Medicare Select policy, or the

MediGap policy, no matter what we

have.

It is projected that each of the 25

hospitals in my district in northern

Michigan will lose an average of $746

per Medicare patient in the year 2000.

Medicare Select will not replace this

lost revenue. Seniors will be forced to

replace the lost revenue.

Meanwhile, Republicans have already

voted to give a $20,000 per year tax cut

to the wealthiest 1.1 million Americans

in this country. That is Medicare Select: A select few will benefit while the

seniors will suffer.

It is imperative the people of northern Michigan have access to quality

medical care. That is why I will continue to fight against the Medicare Select proposal. I will continue to fight

against the Republican proposal to cut

Medicare and Medicaid which is so devastating to Michigan hospitals.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MARKEY].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am

very glad that the gentleman from

Michigan has brought this resolution

out on the floor, because it is absolutely timely for us to discuss this very
May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5583

central issue. The Republicans are proposing 300 billion dollars’ worth of tax

cuts, mostly for the wealthy. And they

are proposing 300 billion dollars’ worth

of reductions in Medicare, largely for

the 83 percent of the elderly who have

$25,000 or less income per year.

Three hundred billion dollars’ worth

of tax cuts for the wealthy, 300 billion

dollars’ worth of cuts in Medicare over

the next 7 years. Now you do not have

to be Dick Tracy to figure out that the

elderly are going to be paying for the

tax cuts of the rich.

The only request that is made by this

resolution is that the conferees look at

this issue, and try to make a determination as they are looking at Medicare Select as to what other recommendations they should be making

to this body in that context. I do not

think that that is an unreasonable request at all at this time, and in fact for

us not to discuss it is to avoid, ignore

the single most pressing issue on us,

which is whether or not we should give

this $300 billion to the wealthy as we

are taking it away from the poorest

and the most elderly in our country.

That is what this whole debate is all

about.

Back in 1981 David Stockman on this

floor tried to harness voluminous

amounts of information to defend a

knowingly erroneous premise. That erroneous premise was you could cut

taxes for the wealthy, increase defense

spending, and balance the budget simultaneously.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me

twice, shame on me.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

PALLONE].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, what I

wanted to point out in this debate

today is that the Republicans who put

together this proposal on the Committee on the Budget sent a letter to the

chairman of our Subcommittee on

Health, the gentleman from Florida

[Mr. BILIRAKIS], and in it they outlined

various proposals that could be implemented in order to achieve the cuts in

Medicare that many of the speakers

have talked about today.

The options that exist in this document, I think there are 35 proposals, in

my opinion limit choice rather than

expand choice, and some of the speakers on the other side of the aisle today

talked about how Medicare Select is

going to provide more choices. The bottom line is if this budget resolution

that the Republicans have passed is implemented, the choices, and by their

own admission, the choices that are

proposed in order to achieve these Medicare cuts are going to be less.

Let me give you an idea. One of the

things that is discussed is increasing

premiums for new beneficiaries who

choose Medicare fee-for-service. One of

the problems that my senior citizens

are concerned about is that they do not

want to be forced into managed-care

systems when they prefer fee-for-service where they can choose their own

doctor or their own hospital. Although

I think Medicare Select is good as an

option, we do not want the situation to

arise where the cost differential, if you

will, between having a fee-for-service

system where you can choose your own

doctor or having to go into a managedcare system, where the cost differential

is so great that in effect you are forced

into a managed-care system. In effect,

by increasing the premiums for new

beneficiaries and saying it is going to

cost more for a fee-for-service system,

you are forcing a lot of people who

have no choice into managed care, into

HMO’s, into not being able to choose

their own doctor or their own hospital.

Another one of the proposals that is

put forward by the House Republican

budget is essentially to simply give

people a voucher, $5,100 a year, they

give you a voucher and you can go out

as a senior citizen and find whatever

policy you can to pay for your health

insurance. Think about how many senior citizens because of their disability,

because of the problems that they

have, how difficult is it for them to go

out and shop around and get a health

care policy.

The choices are being limited by

these Republican proposals, and Medicare Select is not going to solve the

problem.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DOGGETT] has 7

minutes remaining, and the gentleman

from Florida [Mr. BILIRAKIS] has 9 minutes remaining.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my

time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KLINK].

Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the

gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, you know some of the

speakers who were up here today

talked about how overwhelmingly the

House passed this Medicare Select extension. At the time that we passed

that, we did not realize that the Republican budget that was going to come

out was going to cut Medicare so deeply, cut Medicaid so deeply, and that the

cuts in Medicare were going to be exactly reflective of the tax breaks that

were going to be given to the wealthiest citizens of this country. That is the

message that many of us are carrying

here to the floor today. We did not

know all of this back then, and when

you take a look at the impact on your

district and on your State, you begin

to see that Medigap is truly the gap,

the credibility gap, the Republican

Party now has on the issue of Medicare, and that is why we have these

concerns.

There will be some people on the

other side who say we have not made

cuts. Well, the fact of the matter is if

you do not believe you have made cuts,

talk to the CFO’s at the hospitals, talk

to the CEO’s at the hospitals. In Pennsylvania we now know, and we met

with some of our CEO’s and CFO’s last

week, many of them are Republicans,

many of them are Democrats, but they

share one message, 54 hospitals across

the State of Pennsylvania, because of

the cuts that the Republicans are planning, 54 hospitals across our State are

on the critical list. Forty thousand

health care workers across the State of

Pennsylvania could lose their jobs;

348,000 citizens in the State of Pennsylvania alone will be risking not having direct access to hospitals, when and

if many of these hospitals are forced to

close.

You see many of these hospitals get

as much as 60 percent or more of the

funds that they take in from Medicare.

That money will not be there in those

amounts right now, and so when you

start talking about Medicare Select,

when you start talking about making

up the difference, there is going to be a

lot more of a difference to make up.

One in five citizens across the State

of Pennsylvania happens to be on Medicare; one in six of them happen to be

senior citizens. Many of our senior citizens in a State that has the largest

rural population in this entire Nation,

many of our citizens are on both Medicare and Medicaid because they are elderly and they are poor.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN], representing Oberlin and environs.

b 1100

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,

there is an old country and western

song that goes, ‘‘She got the gold mine,

and I got the shaft.’’ Republicans want

to give the gold mine to wealthy special interests and give the shaft to

America’s elderly, $300 billion in tax

breaks, $300 billion in cuts in Medicare.

The Republicans indignantly cry that

these are not really cuts, they are only

slowing the growth in Medicare. Tell

that to the literally millions of Medicare people in Ohio and Pennsylvania

and California and all over this country who will have $3,500 more taken out

of their pocket over the next 7 years in

higher premiums, in deductibles, in

copayments. Tell those people these

are not really cuts.

These are cuts in services. These cuts

in services are to pay for tax breaks for

the wealthiest Americans, tax breaks

for special interests, tax breaks for

people that really do not read those

kinds of tax breaks, the highest income

people in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I support Medicare Select because it provides choice, but as

Republicans move to make these cuts

in Medicare, what they are talking

about is rationing health care, and

what they are talking about is taking

away physician choice.

We should reject that, Mr. Speaker.

We should reject that kind of thinking.

It is not good for America’s elderly. It

is not good for the American people

overall.

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield

such time as he may consume to the
H 5584 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 25, 1995

gentleman from California [Mr. THOMAS].

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, well, I

guess we are not going to talk about

the motion to instruct. Obviously, that

was not the reason you offered what

purportedly is a motion to instruct

conferees.

The factual information in the motion to instruct is simply wrong. There

is no instruction in the motion to instruct. It simply says that you want to

talk about what is going on in this

year’s budget process. That is what the

motion to instruct says.

So, if you do not want to talk about

your motion to instruct, and I am

quite sure you do not expect it to pass

because it would be rather bizarre to

pass a motion to instruct that has no

instructions to the conferees, so what

you really want to do is talk about the

issue of Medicare, and you want to talk

about the issue of Medicare in terms of

what Republicans are trying to do to

make sure that the Medicare trust fund

does not go bankrupt.

I think you need to remember that in

April the trustees of the health insurance trust fund, the Secretary of

Health and Human Services, Donna

Shalala, the Secretary of the Treasury,

Mr. Rubin, Secretary of Labor, all

President Clinton’s appointees to the

Board of Trustees, said if we do nothing, if we do nothing, Medicare goes

bankrupt in 2002.

What Republicans are proposing to

do is take the $4,700 that is spent on

each senior today and grow that to

$6,400 in 2002. If we can do that, if we

can accomplish an increase in the program at that rate, we save Medicare

from bankruptcy.

The Democrats have had some difficulty in understanding that concept.

I want to commend the gentlewoman

from Connecticut [Mrs. KENNELLY] because the gentlewoman from Connecticut said it right. What we are talking

about is reducing the increase. The job

for all of us is to create a Medicare

which has more choice for seniors,

which grows in the amount that is

available, but that fundamentally

makes sure the program does not go

bankrupt.

You have heard the word ‘‘cut’’ over

here from virtually every speaker. It is

a word that is somewhat pejorative,

that is loaded, that is a political term

that they want to use. They cannot

deny themselves the use of the term

‘‘cut.’’ The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. KENNELLY], to her commendable credit, did not say ‘‘cut,’’ because she knows it is not a cut. It is a

reduction in the increase, and, frankly,

when you have increases going up at

10.5 and 11 percent a year in an old

1960’s bill-paying structure, when today’s marketplace is half that, taxpayers should want us to make sure

that we get the savings from the marketplace in the Medicare Program.

That is what we propose to do.

And we are looking for people to join

us in the effort to save Medicare. I did

not hear one person on this floor today

talk about joining in the effort to save

Medicare.

But I want this voice to be heard on

the floor. I want my Democrat colleagues and friends to listen carefully

to the words of this individual. This is

what he said: ‘‘Today, Medicaid and

Medicare are going up at 3 times the

rate of inflation. We propose to let it

go up at 2 times the rate of inflation.

That is not a Medicare or Medicaid

cut.’’ Repeat, ‘‘That is not a Medicare

or Medicaid cut.’’

So when you hear all of this business

about cuts, let me caution you that is

not what is going on. Who said that?

William Jefferson Clinton, President of

the United States and a Democrat. He

believes we have to reduce the rate of

increase, just as the gentlewoman from

Connecticut [Mrs. KENNELLY] said. We

have to reduce the rate of increase.

What we are proposing is to reduce

the rate of increase. What President

Clinton has said must be done, what he

believes should be done is to reduce the

rate of increase. How we do that is

going to be a very, very positive exercise as we open up a 1960’s fee-for-service bill-paying bureaucracy to all of

the exciting changes that are going on

out there in the health care world, one

very small, modest change that has

been a pilot program for 3 years, called

Medicare Select, that has almost a half

million folks in that program, with

only nine complaints to date.

It is a program that we want to continue for a 5-year period. We have told

the Secretary of Health and Human

Services, ‘‘Keep an eye on that program. If it does not do what it is supposed to do, that is, increase choice

and save money, we will sunset the

program. We will come up with another

idea.’’ Right now what we need are new

ideas, not the same old arguments, new

ideas.

Medicare Select is a promising new

idea. We want to send the program to

the 50 States who want to join it. The

States voluntarily take up the program. it is not imposed upon them.

People voluntarily buy their insurance.

It is not imposed upon them. It is a

slightly different way of doing business

in the insurance and health care area.

We want to see if it has some promise.

We are going to try some other ideas.

We are going to bring the sunshine

from the outside, the positive reduction in expenses from the outside, into

this archaic system, by choice. Republicans are going to do that. We would

really love to have our Democratic colleagues join their President in reducing

the increase in positive ways.

Instead, what you hear is pure political propaganda. They do not want to

talk about Medicare Select.

I will tell you, you just heard a number of Democrats come to the microphone, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. KENNELLY], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DOGGETT], the

gentleman from California [Mr. WAXMAN], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MOAKLEY], the gentleman

from New Jersey [Mr. PALLONE], the

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

KLINK], they all voted for the Medicare

Select measure when it left here, 408 to

14.

This is a good idea. What you have

here today on the part of the Democrats is an exercise largely in futility.

They are now the minority party. They

do not get to ram proposals down people’s throats by pure quantitative

measures because they have more votes

than someone else. We are asking them

to come to the table with your ideas.

Let us hear them.

Over the next several months there is

going to be a feeding frenzy of ideas in

the Health Subcommittee of Ways and

Means and Health Subcommittee of

Commerce. We are going to put together a proposal that will make sure

the Medicare trust fund will not go

broke, that seniors will have a better

choice, we will grow the Medicare Program from today’s $4,700 to $6,400 for

every American. We will save the program.

This is a modest beginning. Vote

down the motion to instruct, which instructs nothing, and let us get on with

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDchange.

ING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERfATION OF H.R. 1561, AMERICAN

OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT OF

1995

Mr. GOSS, from the Committee on

Rules, submitted a privileged report

(Rept. No. 104–130) on the resolution (H.

Res. 156) providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1561), to consolidate the foreign affairs agencies of the

United States; to authorize appropriations for the Department of State and

related agencies for fiscal years 1996

and 1997; to responsibly reduce the authorizations of appropriations for U.S.

foreign assistance programs for fiscal

years 1996 and 1997, and for other purposes, which was referred to the House

Calendar and ordered to be printed.

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON

H.R. 483, MEDICARE SELECT EXfPANSION

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield

back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL], the distinguished

ranking member of the Committee on

Commerce.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the facts

from this debate are clear. The Democrats want to see that the discussions

in the conference will address the proposed cuts in Medicare benefits. That is

all we want.

The hard fact is that senior citizens

of this country are going to take a $300

billion hit on their Medicare costs and