E 1182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks June 8, 1995

85 year-old Medicare patient wishes to use an

electric wheelchair because it helps her get

around better, she ought to be assured that

Medicare will cover up to the amount for a

basic model.

During last year’s debate on health care reform, one of the comments I heard most often

from the families of northeast Ohio was concern about restrictions on patient choices.

Health care is too personal to allow choices to

be determined by Government bureaucrats.

This legislation would ensure beneficiaries

true choice of medical equipment such as

wheelchairs, hospital beds, walkers and other

aids. In addition, the bill includes measure to

protect beneficiaries from high pressure sales

and allows the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] to establish guidelines for the

purchase or rental of upgraded equipment.

Restrictions on coverage for medical equipment were established in response to fraud

and abuse in the program. However, these restrictions have become outmoded and inflexible. This legislation would protect older Americans from the hard sell by equipment suppliers while providing the flexibility in their equipment choices.

It is not my intent to allow the industry to

oversell grandma on the luxury models of all

equipment, but we need to have some common sense about Medicare coverage. Why

shouldn’t Medicare beneficiaries have access

to equipment that all Americans do? Why

should they be penalized?

Furthermore, while this legislation ensures

that additional choices are available to the elderly, this bill is revenue neutral to the Medicare Program. Medicare current covers medical equipment at a standard level. My legislation would simply ensure that Medicare beneficiaries could choose an upgraded model and

be reimbursed from Medicare at the standard

level. Thus, the U.S. taxpayer will pay no

more for this choice legislation.

I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring

this necessary legislation.

THE PASSING OF AN AMERICAN

fHERO

HON. RON WYDEN OF OREGON

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, June 7, 1995

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, let us take a moment today to remember one of the great advocates for justice who died at the age of 89

on April 22—my friend and Gray Panthers colleague, Margaret Eliza Kuhn. I had the pleasure of knowing Maggie for 20 years. She was

the inspiration for the Oregon Gray Panthers,

pioneer advocacy organization that has

worked to bring seniors and young people together in Oregon since 1975. Maggie is truly

an American hero.

Maggie Kuhn founded the Gray Panthers in

response to her forced retirement. Her goal

was simple: unite the generations to serve as

advocates for fundamental social change that

would reduce injustice, discrimination, and oppression in our society.

Maggie was given a sewing machine to celebrate her retirement, a seemingly appropriate

gift, but she never even found time to open it.

She was too busy. Instead, she served as a

tireless champion for those without a voice in

our society.

Maggie Kuhn led the fight to root out discrimination against older Americans. Kuhn

thought it was absurd to waste the valuable

talents of older Americans, and helped to

shatter the myth that growing older is synonymous with powerlessness, decrepitude, and

weakness.

Kuhn saw a natural connection between

young and old. She said that the mind needs

exercise to stay healthy. Kuhn encouraged

seniors to return to school. She encouraged

older Americans to teach children, based on

their vast life experiences.

Maggie Kuhn and the Gray Panthers have

always had an aggressive agenda of social

action. Maggie refused to let government and

society stunt the productivity of seniors by

forcing them to retire at age 65. She argued

that forced retirement damages self-esteem

and leads to feelings of uselessness. She felt

it was unconscionable that this physical and

psychological damage could be forcibly imposed as a person ages. Maggie fought mandatory retirement until she won.

Maggie Kuhn would be outraged today by

the recent attacks on the role of seniors in our

society. When talking about Medicare much of

the media says seniors, not out of control

health costs, are the problem. When talking

about Social Security, seniors, not the use of

the Social Security surplus to fund other programs, are again described as the problem.

When it comes to the economy, again seniors

are described as the problem and held out as

takers, not producers.

The fact is millions of seniors are producers,

not takers, and Maggie led the way for older

people to use their skills to make our communities better places every day. Seniors are part

of the solution, not problems as so often portrayed in today’s media.

Older Americans are making valuable contributions every day in many ways around the

country. Stop in at your local blood bank,

school lunch program, or your favorite charity.

You’ll see that seniors are the glue that holds

these programs together. They are the National Senior Service Corps, the Peace Corps,

the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program

[RSVP], and AmeriCorps. Just look around—

seniors are helping—because Maggie Kuhn

helped open the doors for older Americans.

Maggie’s credo was age and youth in action, and I’m pleased that this House is beginning to understand the need for policies that

bring the generations together. Recently, the

House voted for my amendment to promote

kinship care, which gives seniors and other

adult relatives the opportunity to support and

raise children, as an alternative to forcing children from broken homes into foster care run

by strangers. Enacting a national plan to promote kinship care would be an ideal way to

honor Maggie Kuhn, who led the fight to bring

younger and older people together.

Maggie hated waste and foolish bureaucracy. Democrats and Republicans alike can

work together to reduce fraud and waste in

vital government services and protect consumers. In support of this objective, Congress

should pass the bipartisan legislation introduced by the chairs of the House Older Americans Caucus that would attack fraudulent and

unethical practices in the sale of private longterm care insurance.

In the days ahead, Congress will debate

many important issues of social justice. Let us

remember Maggie Kuhn’s life and support

government policies that empower and liberate

our citizens.

Maggie Kuhn led a life of unselfish service

to others. She felt that the greatest sin was to

waste time and to waste human potential. She

lived her life to the fullest. Millions of Americans, young and old, have been touched by

her work.

Maggie Kuhn was once asked how she

would like to be remembered. She recited her

favorite epitaph: ‘‘Here lies so-and-so, under

the only stone she left unturned.’’

Maggie Kuhn, a true American hero, will be

much missed.

BIENNIAL CONGRESSIONAL

fREFORM

HON. LEE H. HAMILTON OF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, June 7, 1995

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution providing for the biennial review of the structure and organization of

Congress.

One of my major conclusions from my work

last Congress on the Joint Committee on the

Organization of Congress is that the institution

is better served if congressional reform is

treated more as an ongoing, continual process

rather than something taken up in an omnibus

way every few decades. Congress has set up

three major bipartisan, bicameral reform efforts in recent times—the 1945, 1965, and

1993 Joint Committees on the Organization of

Congress. All three panels were given extremely broad mandates—to look at virtually

all aspects of Congress in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness. The panel last Congress took up everything from committee jurisdiction reform and the congressional budget

process to ethics reform and congressional

compliance with the laws we pass for everyone else. We conducted scores of hearings,

heard from hundreds of witnesses, looked

over thousands of pages of testimony, considered hundreds of reform ideas, and issued reports totalling several thousand pages.

In my view, it would be far preferable to

have the House take up a congressional reform resolution each Congress:

First, the task would be much more manageable. Members would be able to focus attention on the key reform issues of the day,

rather than consider the entire range of procedural and organizational matters over from

previous Congresses.

Second, political tensions would be lessened. Letting systematic institutional reform

slide for several years only allows problems to

fester and heightens partisan tensions.

Third, continual attention to reform is needed. We live in a rapidly changing world and

need to keep the institution of Congress up to

date on a regular basis.

Fourth, public confidence in Congress would

be bolstered. Regular, systematic reform of

Congress should help improve its operations

and remove unnecessary impediments to legislative action.

Thus I strongly favor bringing a congressional reform resolution to the House floor

every Congress, and letting Members work

their will on the major reform issues of the
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1183

day. That is what the resolution I am introducing today would help to bring about. It has

three main components:

The first, and main, part, Section 1, would

require the House Committee on Rules each

Congress to consider submitting to the House

a congressional reform resolution. My proposal does not require that they report out and

send such a resolution to the floor. It instead

says that they should consider submitting such

a resolution to the House, and—if they decide

against such a resolution—they would have to

explain—as part of their end-of-Congress report required in Section 3 below—why they

thought congressional reform was not needed.

The biennial reform resolution proposed in

Section 1 would draw upon two sources of information, among others:

Section 2 provides for a general floor debate on congressional reform during consideration of the legislative branch appropriations

bill. Just as we set aside time for a HumphreyHawkins debate on the economy each session

during consideration of the budget resolution,

so we should set aside time for regular debate

on how well Congress is working, allowing the

main committee involved in congressional reform to take part in the discussion. The time

of the year when we are funding Congress

would be an appropriate time to discuss how

well Congress is working.

Section 3 requires that the Committee on

Rules, as part of its oversight agenda, submit

a systematic and comprehensive report at the

end of each Congress on the effectiveness of

House organization, operations, and procedures. Earlier this year the House required

each committee, including Rules, to submit an

end-of-Congress report on its overnight activities. My resolution would require that a section

of the Rules Committee report specifically take

up the need for congressional reform—what

was done on reform during that Congress and

what might the areas of future reform.

Mr. Speaker, interest in congressional reform tends to ebb and flow according to the

changing interests of the main House players

in reform, the shifting national agenda, the

varying amounts of media coverage given to

the operations of Congress, and the changing

winds of public interest in major reform. I believe we need to regularize the process so

that whoever is in charge of reform in the future will be looking seriously at scheduling and

debating a congressional reform resolution

each Congress.

My idea is not a new one. The Legislative

Reorganization Act of 1970 stated the need

for a congressional panel to ‘‘make a continuing study of the organization and operation of

the Congress.’’ Moreover, the 1974 bipartisan

House Select Committee on Committees,

headed up by Richard Bolling, stated: ‘‘A key

aspect of any viable reoroganziation is provision for continuing evaluation of its effectiveness, and for periodic adjustments in the institution as new situations arise.’’ I believe it is

time to finally follow through on these recommendations and regularize the congressional reform process.

A TRIBUTE TO MELVIN AND

JOSEPHINE CARLSON

HON. JOHN W. OLVER OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, June 7, 1995

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, on June 9, 1945,

Melvin and Josephine Carlson were married in

the Holy Name Church in West Roxbury, MA.

That is 50 years, for those of you who may

not be mathematically inclined. On the occasion of this monumental anniversary, I must

take time out to pay tribute to their lives together.

Melvin and Joey met at Fort Devens Army

Base in Ayer, MA. For Melvin, an illustrious

military career was in the works. A World War

II combat veteran of Guadalcanal and

Bourgainville fighting, he holds Legion of

Merit, Purple Heart, and Combat Infantry

Badge honors. He is also authorized to wear

the Distinguished Unit badge.

Melvin worked for General Electric, and is

recently retired from New England Confectionery Co. as director of research and development.

Josephine, a graduate of Regis College in

Weston, MA, taught elementary students at St.

Dominici’s School in Brookline, MA. These

days, it is reported that she spends some of

her time gardening, reading, and making afghans for her grandchildren.

Speaking of children, Melvin and Josephine

have three: Joseph Eric, Richard Melvin, and

Elaine Marie, each of who coincidentally went

to Boston College. Melvin and Joey have two

grandchildren: Heather Ann and Eric Joseph

Carlson.

I hear that, in addition to spending as much

time as possible with their children and grandchildren, they are very active in their church,

and they are loved by many good friends, both

old and new.

Fifty years is quite an achievement. I hope

my colleagues will join me in wishing Melvin

and Josephine Carlson many more memorable years together. Congratulations and

happy anniversary.

THE BUDGET—FISCAL YEAR 1996

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON

fSPEECH OF

HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, May 18, 1995

The House in Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union had under

consideration the concurrent resolution (H.

Con. Res. 67) setting forth the congressional

budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal

years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002:

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of

the Congressional Back Caucus substitute

budget for fiscal year 1996. The CBC substitute is a caring budget, it shows compassion

for the American people and is one that the

American people can be proud of. It not only

balances the budget, the measure is responsive to the housing, health, education, and

employment training needs of the American

people.

Unlike the Republicans’ budget proposals,

House Concurrent Resolution 67, which holds

our elderly hostage to their compromised

health care condition and economic status, the

Congressional Black Caucus substitute treats

our elderly with the dignity and respect that

they not only deserve—but have earned. Adequate funding is provided for the older Americans’ programs, including essential nutrition

programs, low-income home-energy assistance, and assisted housing. Medicare is preserved.

The lives of more 2,000,000 Medicare seniors in Texas would be dramatically impacted,

and by the year 2002 each Medicare senior in

Texas would be asked to pay an additional

$1,112 out-of-pocket expenses. Each would

be forced to pay $4,000 more for fiscal years

1996 through 2002 to make up for the cuts.

We want the future to be free but not on the

backs of seniors and those most vulnerable.

Unlike the Republicans’ budget proposal which

forces our elderly to choose between food and

heat, under the CBC alternative their quality of

life is enhanced.

The CBC substitute is also kind to our Nation’s children, including those yet to be born.

It provides adequate funding for Healthy Start,

Child Care, and Head Start. Our children are

our future. They have placed their future in our

hands, we cannot sacrifice the trust.

In addition, the CBC substitute budget

strengthens support for higher education, student aid, TRIO, education for the disadvantaged, school reform, biomedical research,

and community infrastructure. The CBC has

heard the voice of the American people, and

responded with a sound budget that is fair, responsible, and overturns the Republicans’ assault on our Nation’s most vulnerable citizens—the children, the elderly, the Veterans,

and hard-working families.

The Congressional Black Caucus substitute

budget stands on its own merits. We know we

must maintain a strong national defense—but

we also know we must establish our fiscal policy and priorities in a responsible and compassionate manner.

THE AVERAGE AMERICAN HAS

REASON TO BE ANGRY

fHON. BERNARD SANDERS OF VERMONT

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, June 7, 1995

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the

following article for the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD:

(From the Christian Science Monitor, June

1, 1995)

THE AVERAGE AMERICAN HAS REASON TO BE

ANGRY—LOW PAY, LONG HOURS, AND A WIDENING GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR

(By Bernard Sanders)

It has recently been widely reported that

the average American is angry. Well, the average American should be angry.

Since 1973, the working people of this country have worked longer hours, earned less,

and lost much of the economic security they

previously had. During the last 22 years, 80

percent of American families have experienced falling or stagnant real incomes.

Meanwhile, average Americans are experiencing a major drop in their standard of living, while the rich and powerful have never

had it so good.