Appointment of Conferees on Con. Res. 95 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (House of Representatives - April 26, 2005)

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting motion to instruct conferees. First of all, I am happy that we are at the point in time where we are able to go to the conference with the other body and complete our work on the Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2006. This is never an easy road to travel when you are trying to accomplish so much, when you are trying to accomplish reforms in some very challenged programs that by anyone's estimation are unsustainable and are growing beyond the means not only of the Federal Government to fund but also State governments to fund.

It is always difficult when you have different ideas from different chairmen, different bodies, different leaders, different parties who want to come forward and make their mark on exactly what that spending blueprint should be. But I would like to acknowledge that I think we are all happy we are finally getting to a conference and the ability to work out our differences.

As such, I look at this motion to instruct conferees, and I am wondering what the controversy is. All of what the gentlewoman just said are comments that my colleagues on both sides, whether you are Republican or Democrat, have made throughout the entire debate over the budget.

We have an unsustainable program called Medicaid which is not serving the most vulnerable people in our society to the fullest extent that it should or that it must in order to meet not only the obligations that we have entrusted in the program but also to make sure that it is sustainable, not only in the short run of our budget, but also long term in our overall fiscal situation that our country faces and that many of our States face. So as I read the motion to instruct conferees, I am puzzled by what the controversy is.

It says we should recede to the following findings. Those findings are that Medicaid provides essential health care and long-term care services to more than 50 million low-income children, pregnant women, parents, probably grandparents as well and great grandparents of many of ours, individuals with disabilities and senior citizens; and that, B, Medicaid is a Federal guarantee that ensures the most vulnerable will have access to most needed medical services.

We all agree. There is nobody here that disagrees with that. That is what the program was set up for; and that is the reason why we are so intent on reforming it, so that it continues to meet that mission and continues to deliver quality health care services for our parents and our grandparents, children who may be of low-income families and people with disabilities and senior citizens. It is a guarantee. It is something that we all believe in. We are here to help people who cannot help themselves.

Unfortunately, this program in many instances in its current state, 40 years old now, you might not be surprised to hear that it needs a little bit of work, it needs a little bit of reforming. The Governors have figured that out, and they have come to Washington with proposals that find savings, not cuts. They are themselves proposing savings in the neighborhood of $8 billion to $9 billion, and that is just their first inception, that is just their first proposal, before we even go down that road.

Then I looked further at the motion to instruct conferees and it says: ``To strike reconciliation instructions to

the Committee on Energy and Commerce and recede to the Senate by including language declaring that a reconciliation bill shall not be reported that achieves spending reductions that would undermine the role the Medicaid program plays as a critical component of the health care system of the United States.''

I say again, there is no controversy in that. That is not the intent of the budget, that is not the intent of the conference, that certainly is not the intent of either reconciliation instruction. In fact, we think it is a pretty good idea to set up a conference and to set up an opportunity to take a look at this in some type forum, whether it is a task force, whether it is a working group, however you want to put it together, in order to come up with ideas and resolve this problem.

We want to invite the Governors to the table. Certainly they have the best perspective when it comes to how this program works in their individual States. Many of them have sought waivers in order to be able to reform the program on the ground in which they see it so that that program which delivers these essential services can be met and delivered in a more quality way to our seniors and to our citizens with disabilities, to our parents and grandparents, and to our most vulnerable who may be low income.

So I do not see the controversy. I understand that because, as the gentlewoman said, there are polls, there certainly is politics involved. Anytime that anyone wants to bring forward any kind of reform measure, the

immediate thing is to rush breathlessly to the floor and claim that it is cutting funds for people, and it is cutting the most vulnerable and it is hurting people, and that is exactly what was said about the welfare reform bill when it came to the floor not 10 years ago, and it did not happen. It helped people. It unlocked from poverty thousands upon thousands of families and children in our society who all they needed was a hand up. For a while they may even have needed a handout. But because of the requirements that we passed in a bipartisan way, we were able to rise above the politics and the rhetoric and help people. That is what we want to do here.

There is not one Member who can come to the floor and say this Medicaid program is working in your State to its fullest extent, not one of you. Not one of you can say that. There is not one Member in the other body who can say that. There is, I dare say, not one Governor who can claim the Medicaid program in their State is working. So you are asking us here today in a political way, in a nonbinding motion to instruct, to do nothing.

Thankfully, that is not how you crafted technically your motion to instruct. You gave just a little bit of a backdoor, because you know as well as we do that this program needs attention, that it needs reformation, that it needs Governors and Congress and the administration to sit down and talk about the future of a program that is needed in order to deal with the most vulnerable in our society. So thank you for not crafting this in such a fail-safe way so that we had to vote against it and suggest that Medicaid should not be reformed, because, of course, it should.

I hope that is not what you are saying. If you are, say it. If you are saying do not reform Medicaid, do not touch it, do not change it, it is perfect, it is helping people, come to the floor and dare to say that. But if that is not what you are saying, then save that political rhetoric for some other time and let us work together to fix it.

That is what this ought to be about. Republican and Democrat Governors are certainly willing to do that. They are sitting down. I have got proposals here that add up to $8.6 billion of ideas that the Governors have already agreed to as a starting point. Now, are we claiming that those Governors are cutting? Are they gouging? Are they throwing people out on the street? Are they hurting seniors and people with disabilities?

Certainly that is not what we are saying. That is not what we would claim they are doing. They see a problem, they have come together to try to fix it, and that is what we should do as well. Reconciliation gives us that opportunity.

So I appreciate the gentlewoman's motion to instruct. It is crafted perfectly so that political points can be made. But there is just that little backdoor that says, you know what, even though we kind of like the Senate language, we like the fact that they are putting together ideas, we like the fact that the Governors are coming to the table, we heard all of that rhetoric, even though we want to make some political points today, there is a little bit of a backdoor so we can all vote for this and say that the Medicaid program, as most of our Governors would suggest, is unsustainable. It is unsustainable whether you are in the capital of your State or whether you are in Washington, D.C. And that is why we need to come together as Republicans and Democrats, in order to fix this.

So I appreciate the way the gentlewoman has crafted it. I am going to urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct. I think it is well-crafted, to give everybody the opportunity to make the political points, to issue your press releases. I know you are going to do that. Knock yourselves out. I am sure they are already on the fax machine. But in the meantime, after all of the fax paper has cleared the air, let us sit down and talk about ways to fix this program so it actually does help people who are in need and were truly meant to be the focal point of this program when it was invented 40 years ago and which has rarely been changed from a Washington perspective ever since.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

http://thomas.loc.gov