[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5213-S5214]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I actually will be brief, Mr. 
President. I, between other work, had a chance to hear some of my 
colleagues speak on the floor. Since they are not here now, I do not 
choose to get into a major debate. Others Senators are not here. 
Hopefully, we can do that at the right time.
  Just a couple quick points for the record, Mr. President. We have for 
now, several days or at least the last day and a half, been at an 
impasse. I just want to set the record straight.
  One or two of my colleagues were talking about the delay and the, if 
you will, filibuster of this rescission bill. Actually, I think it was 
yesterday morning, I came out with a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I 
made it very clear that I was willing to vote on it, was more than 
willing to have a time agreement. But the majority leader then came out 
and second degreed that amendment.
  For those watching, second degree means that his amendment took 
precedence over my amendment.
  From that point in time, we really have been pretty much at an 
impasse. The amendment I brought to the floor of the Senate yesterday 
dealt with the Women, Infants, and Children Program, nutrition 
standards, all of which, by the way, is quite relevant to this 
rescissions bill, since there are proposed cuts in the WIC Program.
  The majority leader's second-degree amendment dealt with Jordan.
  At that point in time, Mr. President, we have been pretty much at an 
impasse, but it is certainly not because Senators like myself and 
others do not want to move forward. We do.
  There has been another amendment which has taken up a good deal of 
the time this week by my colleague from New York. That amendment deals 
with Mexico--financial assistance to Mexico.
  Mr. President, the rescissions bill of proposed cuts, we have had 
some debate about that. There has been some discussion of the minority 
leader's amendment which I think is a very important corrective step in 
restoring some funding for programs that are really not programs--
bureaucracy--but perhaps that really make a difference. Childrens' 
lives, senior citizens' lives--just name it.
  Mr. President, by and large the last 2 days have been pretty much an 
impasse, but it is not because on the part of Democratic Senators that 
there is not a willingness to move forward. We are more than willing to 
move forward.
  I did not second-degree my amendment. I wanted to have an up-or-down 
vote. I did not have an amendment that dealt with aid to Jordan on the 
rescissions package. That was not my decision.
  I just want the record to be clear when Senators come out here and 
say, well, where are they? Why are we not moving forward? I would be 
pleased to. I had an amendment that was in a sense only a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment, but it did not deal with Women, Infants, and 
Children, did not deal with nutritional standards, did not deal with 
children, and those are some of the programs we are talking about and 
debating.
  Second point, Mr. President, some of the discussion about Medicare, 
tonight is not the night to really go into this in great detail or 
depth, but I feel like some of the comments of colleagues deserve a 
response--a brief response. I fear that it is just too easy for 
Senators to come to the floor about the statistics and data about 
Medicare, and then make the argument that this is the area that we 
really have to kind of make the cuts.
  Mr. President, a couple of points. In the State of Minnesota, with 
some of the projected cuts that we will be discussing if not today, 
certainly during this session, those cuts can amount to as much as $10 
billion for Medicare and Medicaid. By the way, about 40 percent of 
Medicaid is for the elderly in nursing homes.
  I can just say, and I speak to my colleague from Minnesota, that if 
we talk to people in rural Minnesota and we ask them what that will 
mean either in terms of less reimbursement for some of the hospitals 
and clinics that already struggle because of the inadequate 
reimbursement, or if we add to copays or deductibles or make seniors 
pay more out of their pockets, we will across-the-board from senior 
citizens and the care givers, get the same response: Its impact will be 
devastating.
  Mr. President, I would just raise two points. Point one, I wonder why 
some of my colleagues who talked about the dangers of rationing when we 
were talking about universal health care coverage last Congress, now 
when we talk about just the focus on Medicare and Medicaid and the need 
for deep cuts in those programs, are not talking about rationing.
  Quite clearly, in the absence of overall health care reform, in the 
absence of some courage about how to contain costs--and by the way, I 
think we have to contain costs to have universal coverage--if we just 
target Medicare and Medicaid, then we are guaranteeing that there will 
be rationing: by age, by disability, and by income.
  I can assure Members that those citizens that would be most affected 
by these proposed cuts are going to be the citizens who are going to 
have a very bold and I think clear voice. Not because there are some 
awful special interests but because they have every reason to raise 
questions.
  The Medicare program, imperfections and all, passed in 1965, has made 
a huge difference for me. I can say that as a son of two parents with 
Parkinson's disease. For my mother and father, who were not exactly 
wealthy, Medicare was the difference between being able to survive and 
financial disaster.
  The Medicare program is not perfect. There are imperfections. There 
are imperfections to all public and private sector programs, but I 
think that most view Medicare and Medicaid, both passed in 1965, as 
steps forward, made our country a better country.
  Now, I am not opposed to reform at all. But I do want to make it 
crystal clear that in the projections that have been laid out here, and 
what is to be done, I have noticed a certain silence, and that silence 
is deafening on two counts.
  Number one, based upon the criteria of ``Well, aren't you going to 
then be rationing?'' And, number two, ``What about containing costs 
within the overall health care system?"
  When the Congressional Budget Office scored these different health 
care plans last Congress, the one proposal to contain costs that really 
got a very strong score, that really made sense, I say to my colleague 
from Utah whom I respect and who I know is immersed in this debate, the 
one proposal that did extremely well was to put some kind of limit on 
insurance company premiums.
  No question about it, in terms of the effectiveness of such a 
proposal as a 
[[Page S5214]] part of overall cost containment strategy. It was taken 
off the table immediately. Taken off the table immediately. I wonder 
why? Sure, the insurance industry has a tremendous amount of power.
  I would just say to my colleagues before we start talking about all 
senior citizens herded into managed care plans, forgetting fee-for-
service period, I thought choice was an important issue. And before we 
start talking about the way we contain health care costs is target 
Medicare and Medicaid, we should be sure that we are intellectually 
rigorous and that we are very honest in our policy choices. We also 
look at other ways of containing costs.
  I will just say to my colleagues, we can take a look at the CBO 
studies last Congress when they looked at a lot of different proposals, 
and I see no reason in the world why, in fact, insurance company 
premiums are not on the table as well in terms of where we try to put 
some kind of limit as a Senate strategy of cost containment.
  Last point, a discussion about welfare. I am just responding to some 
of what I heard on the floor today. I apologize to colleagues that are 
not here. When there will be time for debate there will be debate. 
Nothing that I will say will be personal. Nothing that I will say on 
the floor right now will be at all hard hitting because I think people 
should be on the floor to have a right to respond to whatever we say.
  I do think that the concern that I have, at least about some of what 
is in this rescissions package which is cuts in this year's budgets, 
much less some of the proposals in the future, vis-a-vis some of the 
block grant, is not flexibility.
  That is not the concern I have. The concern I have is that in real 
dollar terms, when we look at some of the proposed cuts, I really think 
that the effect of those cuts on too many citizens, and I will start 
with children, is too much in the negative.
  Again, whether it is the insurance companies and their premiums, that 
somehow that is not on the table when we talk about how to contain 
health care costs, but we want to target Medicare or Medicaid, same 
thing here.
  Whether it is school lunch or school breakfast or whether it is WIC, 
or whether it is just the child care block grants programs right now, 
all that is on the table, clear proposed cuts; but on the other hand, 
subsidies for oil companies or coal companies or tobacco companies or 
insurance companies are not on the table.
  I think there has to be some standard of fairness, Mr. President. I 
think that is what people in Minnesota and the country are interested 
in. I think everyone is aware we have to get our fiscal house in order, 
although I think there are different views about how to do that. I 
think we have to have balance.
  There has not been an effort on the floor of the Senate on my part, 
and I do not think on the part of Democrats, to slow anything up. I 
wanted a vote on the amendment I introduced yesterday.
  I will go back to that and end on this. I wanted a vote on the 
amendment I introduced yesterday morning, which was a long time ago. I 
did not choose to second-degree that amendment. That was not my 
amendment on Jordan and financial aid to Jordan. That was the majority 
leader, the Republican Party. That is his choice--skillful legislator--
he did so. Ever since, we have essentially been tied into a knot.
  That is really the story of the last 24 hours in the Senate. I look 
forward to when we get back to this debate. I hope that we can have 
some good debate on this rescissions package. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________