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
May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5585

that $300 billion hit is going to be used

to finance a tax cut for the well-to-do.

Now, I can understand how my Republican colleagues get outraged about

this. One of my colleagues from California quoted the President telling

that Medicare is in trouble. Everybody

has known Medicare was in trouble.

The President tried to do something

about it last year, and his comments of

last year, quoted on this floor by the

previous Member who addressed this

body, simply said Medicare is in trouble unless you pass his universal health

care coverage program. Every single

Republican opposed that. Everybody

knows health care in this country is in

trouble. Everybody knows health care

costs in this country are escalating at

an excessive rate. Everybody knows

that availability of insurance and the

affordability of insurance is declining.

We can talk about innovation and innovativeness and everything else, and a

feeding frenzy of innovation that is

supposed to take place. In the health

care subcommittee, run by the gentleman from California, there has been

no excessive innovation or anything of

that kind going on in his committee

and certainly nothing vaguely resembling a feeding frenzy of innovation,

certainly no sign of innovation in his

committee, nothing except cuts for the

senior citizens, give a tax break to the

rich and talk about how the Democrats

are responsible for the problem.

The real problem began last year in

this Congress and the year before when

the Republicans refused to a man to

consider any reform in health care

overall which would not only have addressed the problem of Medicare and

its viability but also every other

health care program in this country

which would have made health care

available to every American and which

would have seen to it that the costs of

health care for business, for industry,

for government, and for the ordinary

citizen would have gone back.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield

myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have been told that

this is a debate about MediGap, and indeed it is. It is a debate about whether

or not these conferees will consider the

realities of what has occurred on this

House floor with reference to the cuts

and the increases in out-of-pocket

costs to Medicare recipients across this

country. There is a giant MediGap, because another 30 minutes later all we

have is a blank page from the Republican Party with reference to what

they are going to do to seniors across

this country.

They refuse to come to this floor and

tell the people of America what the

journalists have found, what the American Association of Retired Persons has

found, that when a senior anywhere in

this country reaches for their wallet to

pay for the same level of health care,

they are going to reach in and find it

does not stretch as far as it used to, because their premiums, their deductible

has been doubled, their premiums have

been raised, new out-of-pocket costs

face them, and instead of MediGap, the

kind of insurance we are going to need

is medigorge, because a giant gorge is

being created that will not be filled unless this instruction is approved.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

SHAYS). Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion

to instruct.

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on the motion to instruct

offered by the gentleman from Texas

[Mr. DOGGETT].

The question was taken; and the

Speaker pro tempore announced that

the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I object

to the vote on the ground that a

quorum is not present and make the

point of order that a quorum is not

present.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 197, nays

224, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 355]

YEAS—197

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Andrews

Baesler

Baldacci

Barcia

Barrett (WI)

Beilenson

Bentsen

Berman

Bevill

Bishop

Bonior

Borski

Boucher

Brewster

Browder

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Cardin

Chapman

Clayton

Clement

Clyburn

Coleman

Collins (IL)

Collins (MI)

Condit

Conyers

Costello

Coyne

Cramer

Danner

de la Garza

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Dooley

Doyle

Durbin

Edwards

Engel

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fattah

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Foglietta

Ford

Frank (MA)

Frost

Furse

Gejdenson

Gephardt

Geren

Gibbons

Gonzalez

Gordon

Green

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hayes

Hefner

Hilliard

Hinchey

Holden

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Jacobs

Jefferson

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, E.B.

Johnston

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Klink

LaFalce

Lantos

Laughlin

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lincoln

Lofgren

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Markey

Martinez

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McDermott

McHale

McKinney

McNulty

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Minge

Mink

Moakley

Mollohan

Montgomery

Moran

Murtha

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Orton

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Payne (VA)

Pelosi

Peterson (MN)

Pickett

Pomeroy

Poshard

Rahall

Rangel

Reed

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers

Roemer

Rose

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sawyer

Schroeder

Schumer

Scott

Serrano

Sisisky

Skaggs

Skelton

Slaughter

Spratt

Stark

Stenholm

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Tanner

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Tejeda

Thompson

Thornton

Thurman

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Traficant

Tucker

Vela ́ zquez

Vento

Visclosky

Volkmer

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Williams

Wilson

Wise

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

NAYS—224

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bereuter

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bliley

Blute

Boehlert

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Camp

Canady

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Combest

Cooley

Cox

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cunningham

Davis

Deal

DeLay

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Doolittle

Dornan

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

English

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fawell

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Forbes

Fowler

Fox

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Funderburk

Ganske

Gekas

Gilchrest

Gillmor

Gilman

Goodlatte

Goodling

Goss

Graham

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutknecht

Hancock

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayworth

Hefley

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kasich

Kelly

Kim

King

Kingston

Klug

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Lazio

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Linder

Lipinski

LoBiondo

Longley

Lucas

Manzullo

Martini

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Metcalf

Mica

Miller (FL)

Molinari

Moorhead

Morella

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Paxon

Petri

Pombo

Porter

Portman

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Ramstad

Regula

Riggs

Roberts

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Roth

Roukema

Royce

Salmon

Sanford

Saxton

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shaw

Shays

Shuster

Skeen

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Stearns

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tate

Taylor (NC)

Thomas

Thornberry

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Upton

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Wolf

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

Zimmer

NOT VOTING—13

Becerra

Calvert

Clay

Cubin

Fazio

Gallegly

Hansen

Istook

Kleczka

Livingston

Meyers

Nussle

Peterson (FL)

b 1135

The Clerk announced the following

pair: On this vote:

Mr. BECERRA for, with Mrs. CUBIN against.
H 5586 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 25, 1995

Mr. COBURN and Mr. KIM changed

their vote from ‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’

Ms. WATERS and Mr. SCHUMER

changed their vote from ‘‘nay’’ to

‘‘yea.’’

So the motion to instruct was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

SHAYS). Without objection, the Chair

appoints the following conferees:

Messrs. BLILEY, BILIRAKIS, HASTERT,

ARCHER, and THOMAS, Mrs. JOHNSON of

Connecticut, and Messrs. DINGELL,

WAXMAN, GIBBONS, and STARK.

REMOVAL OF NAMES OF MEMThere was no objection.

BERS AS COSPONSORS OF H.R.

f571

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the gentleman

from New York [Mr. SCHUMER], the

gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

TORRICELLI], and the gentleman from

Wisconsin [Mr. BARRETT] be removed

as cosponsors of H.R. 571. The gentlemen misunderstood the substance of

that bill, and we have agreed to remove

them as cosponsors.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING PREThere was no objection.

FILING REQUIREMENT FOR

fAMENDMENTS TO H.R. 1530, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on National Security ordered reported H.R. 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for

fiscal year 1996. The Rules Committee

plans to meet during the week of June

5 to grant a rule for the bill which is

scheduled for floor consideration during the week of June 12.

The Rules Committee expects to report the traditional structured rule

making in order only amendments

prefiled with our committee.

Members who wish to offer amendments to the bill should submit 55 copies of their amendments, together with

and a brief explanation, to the Rules

Committee office at H–312 of the Capitol, no later than 5 p.m. on Tuesday,

June 6.

Amendments should be drafted to the

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the National

Security Committee. Copies of the

committee substitute will be available

for examination by Members and staff

in the offices of the committee at 2120

Rayburn House Office Building.

Members are advised to use the Office of Legislative Counsel to draft

their amendments.

If Members or their staff have any

questions regarding this procedure,

they should contact David Lonie of our

staff at extension 5–7985. We appreciate

the cooperation of all Members in submitting their amendments by the 5

p.m., June 6 deadline in properly drafted form.

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RULES

Washington, DC, May 25, 1995.

PRE-FILING REQUIREMENT FOR AMENDMENTS

TO DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL (H.R. 1530)

DEAR COLLEAGUE: The Rules Committee

plans to meet during the week of June 5th to

grant a rule for the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1530) which is scheduled for floor consideration during the week

of June 12th.

The Rules Committee expects to report the

traditional structured rule making in order

only amendments pre-filed with our Committee. Members who wish to offer amendments

to the bill should submit 55 copies of their

amendments, together with a brief explanation, to the Rules Committee office at H–

312 of the Capitol, no later than 5 p.m. on

Tuesday, June 6th.

Amendments should be drafted to the

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the National Security Committee. Copies of the Committee substitute

will be available for examination by Members and staff in the offices of the Committee

at 2120 Rayburn House Office Building. Members are requested to use the Office of Legislative Counsel to draft their amendments.

If Members or their staff have any questions regarding this procedure, they should

contact David Lonie of our staff at Extension 5–7985. We appreciate the cooperation of

all Members in submitting their amendments by the 5 p.m., June 6th deadline in

properly drafted form.

Sincerely,

GERALD B. SOLOMON,

f Chairman.

ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING ADDITIONAL TIME FOR DEBATE ON

AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 1561, THE

AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT OF 1995

(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want

my colleagues to be absolutely clear

why we are providing additional time

after the recess to consider H.R. 1561

the American Overseas Interests Act.

It is because so many amendments are

still pending and because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle

requested additional time for them.

The rule accompanying H.R. 1561 provided for 2 hours of general debate and

10 for amendments that were

preprinted in the RECORD. Any remaining amendments would be considered

under a 10-minute time limit, with all

debate to conclude by 2:30 this afternoon.

As of last night—100 amendments had

been filed—58 by Republicans and 42

Democrats. When the Committee rose

yesterday, we had consumed 9 of the 10

hours of debate and had disposed of

nine amendments—six Republican and

three Democrat.

Of the 91 amendments remaining—51

are Republican and 39 are Democratic

amendments. It is to accommodate

those Members with remaining amendments that we are proposing an additional 6 hours of debate when we return

from the recess.

Reports that we yanked H.R. 1561 because the bill is in trouble are just

plain wrong. We are acting to provide

more time to consider this very important measure that deals with our foreign policy agencies and programs.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the gentleman for yielding, and I think

it makes sense. We have a large number of amendments pending, and I

think it makes sense to have some

modicum of debate. Am I to assume

that the committee will be recommending to the Committee on Rules

when we come back in a week-and-ahalf a time limit on these amendments,

or will it be staying under the 5-minute

rule?

Mr. GILMAN. I will yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. SOLOMON],

the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SOLOMON. I will say to my good

friend, the gentleman from California,

that we have already reported a rule

about an hour ago which does provide

for 6 hours of additional time under the

5-minute rule, yes.

Mr. BERMAN. So essentially there is

no time limit on any individual amendment.

Mr. SOLOMON. I would just say to

the chairman of the Committee on

International Relations that if there

were going to be any time limitations

on amendments, it would have to be

negotiated between both sides of the

aisle. That is to be expected.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the

gentleman will yield for one further

question, is the plan to bring this rule

to the floor on Wednesday, June 7?

Mr. GILMAN. That is correct.

Mr. BERMAN. Is it the plan to then

move, assuming that rule passes, to the

6 hours remaining of debate on Wednesday, June 7?

Mr. GILMAN. It is my understanding

we would be able to then move to consider the 6 hours of remaining debate.

Mr. BERMAN. Are the amendments

limited to the amendments that have

been printed in the RECORD as of today?

Mr. GILMAN. That is my understanding. Only the amendments that have

been printed in the RECORD as of yesterday.

Mr. BERMAN. Does it include a managers’ amendment?

Mr. GILMAN. Yes it would be included.