[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 179 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16979-S16980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THE 7-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me be clear that Senator Kennedy 
will be on the floor with his motion. I am actually not making a 
motion. But what I thought I would do is take a little bit of time to 
talk about one provision in the motion. That is something that I have 
worked on, and I want to speak a little bit about that.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I just ask that maybe we keep track of 
the time because we are on a time limit. So this time might be assigned 
to the block of time which will be used for consideration of this 
motion, if that is part of the agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I want to inform the Senator from Minnesota 
that the Senator from Massachusetts will have a total of 40 minutes on 
this motion.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have been allotted 10 minutes. So I 
will be pleased to lock that block of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, this time is taken from the 
time of the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Before I proceed, could I make 
sure? I ask the Chair to please notify me if I should go over 10 
minutes, because I do not want to take any more time than that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is allotted 10 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me just talk about one provision in this motion to 
instruct conferees that Senator Kennedy is going to be making. This is 
a provision that I worked on, which essentially says that the Congress 
shall be instructed to delete provisions that provide greater or lesser 
Medicaid spending in States based upon the votes needed for the passage 
of the legislation rather than the needs of the people in those States.
  What I am essentially saying here is that what happened a couple of 
weeks ago in the dark of night was that the U.S. Senate exchanged 
Medicaid money for votes. What I am saying in this provision in this 
instruction to the conferees is that when we develop a formula for 
allocating Medicaid--or what we call in Minnesota medical assistance 
funds--it ought to be based upon some rational policy choice. It ought 
to be based upon the needs of the people in the States. It ought not to 
be based on some kind of a deal which is all based upon the number of 
votes to pass a particular piece of legislation.

  From my State, on this Friday night in about 3 hours we went from 
seeing a cut of $2.4 billion to a cut of $2.9 billion. In other words, 
the State of Minnesota lost $500 million.
  Mr. President, we need to understand that in the State of Minnesota 
altogether the projected cuts on Medicare and medical assistance are 
going to be somewhere between $7 billion and $8 billion.
  So the concern that I have--and the reason that I am working with 
Senator Kennedy on this, and so much appreciate his instruction to 
conferees--it seems to me that it is outrageous for the U.S. Senate to 
make decisions on allocation of medical assistance funds to States 
based upon some sort of 

[[Page S 16980]]
wheeling and dealing that takes place where Senators leverage the votes 
for the amount of money that goes to their States as opposed to some 
kind of rational policy, and as opposed to the needs of the people in 
those States.
  I am also out here as an advocate for my State of Minnesota. In the 
dark of night in 3 hours, all of a sudden Minnesota has $500 million 
less of support. Mr. President, let me now translate this, if I can, in 
human terms, in personal terms.
  Let me first of all just say to my colleagues that I am concerned 
about this because it is not just some dry formula. We are talking 
about 300,000 children in the State of Minnesota that are covered by 
medical assistance. With the kind of reductions that we are going to be 
faced with--about $2.9 billion--the question becomes, What happens to 
those children? Mr. President, in the State of Minnesota we have a 
program called the TEFRA Program, which is extremely important, that 
allows 300,000 children with severe disabilities to be eligible for 
Medicaid based upon their own income and which allows families, 
therefore, to be able to keep those children at home.
  Mr. President, the question becomes what happens to those children 
with disabilities and those families that provide tender loving care to 
those children with disabilities when we have these kind of draconian 
reductions in medical assistance? That is why I have some indignation 
about some dark-of-the-night decision that takes $500 million more away 
from my State of Minnesota.
  But it is not just my State. It is some of the most vulnerable 
citizens in America. Mr. President, 60 percent of our medical 
assistance funds--that is what we call it in Minnesota; we are talking 
about Medicaid nationally--will go to pay for nursing home care. About 
two-thirds of all of the seniors that are in nursing homes in Minnesota 
rely on some medical assistance funds.
  Mr. President, I am a huge advocate of home-based care. I think 
people should be able to live at home in as near a normal circumstance 
as possible with dignity. But sometimes the nursing home is the home 
away from home, and the question becomes what in the world are we going 
to do as caregivers who care about taking care of elderly people? What 
is going to happen to senior citizens that are in those nursing homes? 
Who is going to make up the difference?
  Mr. President, all too often in my State of Minnesota--and I am 
guessing it is the same way in Louisiana or Michigan--I am hearing at 
the county level commissioners say to me: Senator, what is going to 
happen is we are going to be asked to raise the property taxes, and we 
are not going to be able to do so. And if we are not going to be able 
to do so, we are going to redefine eligibility; we are going to reduce 
services, and there are going to be a lot of persons who will be hurt.
  Above and beyond that, there are some 70,000 senior citizens in 
Minnesota who are below the poverty level, and for those senior 
citizens the medical assistance funds are what enable them to pay their 
part B premium for Medicare, which is the physician services.
  So again the question becomes, why does the U.S. Senate make 
decisions based on wheeling and dealing to get votes, not based upon 
the needs of citizens in our States? Why a medical assistance formula 
in the dark of night which is so patently unfair to so many States, 
including my State of Minnesota? And above and beyond my State and 
above and beyond the formula the real issue is, what about the impact 
on the people?
  I have said 10 times in this Chamber that this is a rush to 
recklessness. I will say it an 11th time. This is not good policy. It 
does not pay attention to the impact it is going to have on people's 
lives. This instruction to conferees which relates to this formula is 
extremely important.
  I conclude by repeating it one more time. Our instruction is to 
delete any provisions that provide a greater or lesser Medicaid 
spending in States based upon the votes needed for the passage of 
legislation rather than the needs of the people in those States. 
Without apology, without equivocation, I am proud to advocate it for 
citizens in my State of Minnesota. It is not just the seniors. It is 
not just the children. It is not just people with disabilities. It is 
also a State that values good health care. We want support for our 
medical education. We want our rural hospitals that depend so much on 
the Medicare and Medicaid patient payment mix to be able to continue to 
provide care. We want to be able to deliver primary care out in the 
communities. This budget that has been worked out is not based upon any 
kind of understanding of health care policy that will respond to 
people's needs in Minnesota or Iowa or any other State.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes and 20 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes and 20 seconds back 
to the Senator from Massachusetts when he brings this motion out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield the floor?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________