[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S3940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MORRELL RETIREES

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last month, Republicans in the House of 
Representatives marked the first 50 days of their efforts to pass the 
Contract With America. Notably missing from their speeches was any 
mention of progress in the fight to enact health reform.
  Indeed, this issue was not even mentioned in the House Contract With 
America, nor was health reform among the priority bills introduced by 
Republicans in either the House or Senate leadership.
  Meanwhile, in this first 100 days, another group of citizens in my 
home State was learning, personally and painfully, why we need to 
continue the fight for health reform.
  The 3,300 retirees of John Morrell & Co., a South Dakota meat packing 
firm, learned this January that the firm was ending all retiree health 
coverage.
  Many of these retirees and their families had worked for Morrell all 
of their adult lives.
  On January 24, Morrell retirees received a simple, yet unexpected, 
letter stating that their health insurance plan was being terminated, 
effective midnight, January 31, 1995--only a week later.
  The benefits being terminated, the letter said, included all 
hospital, major medical, and prescription drug coverage, Medicare 
supplemental insurance, vision care, and life insurance coverage.
  For those retirees under 65, this action poses a particular problem. 
While Morrell gave them the option of paying for their own coverage for 
up to 1 year, few can afford the $500 monthly premium for a couple. And 
many cannot purchase coverage at any price, because of preexisting 
conditions like diabetes or heart disease.
  Medicare beneficiaries would have to buy expensive supplemental 
insurance on their own.
  Morrell's decision was all the more painful to the retirees because 
it was so unexpected. These retirees believed they worked for a fair 
company; that a fair day's work resulted in a fair day's pay. They 
found out the hard way that the company they had helped to build had 
turned its back on them.
  They also found out that the court system was not sympathetic to 
their cause: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the 
company's decision. The union is now planning to appeal the decision to 
the Supreme Court.
  Sadly, some of the retirees will not live long enough for a possible 
reversal.
  And, if medical expenses eat up their income and assets, some Morrell 
retirees might be forced to resort to welfare.
  All will struggle financially and emotionally to accept the change in 
benefits that they counted on for life.
  A recent edition of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader recounted the 
stories of several Morrell retirees and their families.
  One 26-year veteran of Morrell is legally blind, has diabetes and 
arthritis, takes heart medication, and wears a hearing aid. His $300 
monthly pension from Morrell will not even cover the prescription drugs 
he needs. He fears the financial burden of high medical costs will 
force him and his wife to sell their home.
  Another retiree gave up $130 from his monthly Morrell pension so his 
wife could get health insurance. He now has cancer and glaucoma, and 
his monthly prescription costs are $800. His wife's monthly drug costs 
are $200. His monthly pension from Morrell, after 30 years service, is 
about $300.
  Finally, a retiree who had a kidney transplant and recently had a leg 
amputated, figures that he can pay for the company-offered insurance 
coverage for the year it is available. After that he is not sure what 
he will do to pay the $1,000 monthly cost for antirejection drugs, 
which Medicare doesn't cover.
  Mr. President, the stories go on and on.
  They describe proud people who worry that high medical costs will 
impoverish them or force them to rely on their children for financial 
help.
  They are stories about loyal employees who each day will live in fear 
of illness and injury because they have no health insurance.
  Unfortunately, this is not an isolated situation. What happened to 
Morrell workers could happen to any of the 14 million retired workers 
who believe they and their families have lifelong health insurance 
coverage through their employers.
  As companies look for ways to reduce their health care costs, they 
will no doubt look at drastic reductions in, or outright elimination 
of, retiree health care benefits.
  That just is not the way it should be in this country.
  We all like to think that, if we work hard and play by the rules, we 
will be rewarded, especially in our old age.
  Sadly, when it comes to our health care system, this is often not the 
case.
  I was disappointed that the 103d Congress was unable to pass 
comprehensive health reform, because many of the proposals we were 
considering would have addressed the problem the Morrell retirees now 
face.
  A union official recently said, ``I wish that Harry and Louise could 
see what's happened to the people at Morrell.''
  I could not agree more. The problems we talked about in last year's 
health reform debate have not gone away simply because that session of 
Congress has ended.
  The Morrell retiree situation is a painful reminder of that fact.
  As I recently indicated in a letter to the majority leader, I remain 
committed to working with all of our colleagues to craft legislation 
that will address the serious problems of the health care system that 
plague American families and businesses.
  I will also be offering in the next few weeks a bill that will deal 
directly with the problem that Morrell and other retirees face.
  I hope that those who have blocked and delayed health reform will at 
least support the effort to ensure that our Nation's retirees get a 
fair day's wage from a fair day's work.




                          ____________________