[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 179 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16996-S16999]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION

  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me also commend the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts as well as the Senator from Connecticut for their 
comments on the matter directly pertaining to our schedule tonight and 
the next couple of days. I think there is some misunderstanding about 
what is involved with both the continuing resolution and the debt 
limit. I think it is very important that everybody clearly understand 
what the circumstances are tonight.
  Tonight the continuing resolution, which the President will veto, 
includes the lowest funding level of either the House or the Senate. No 
programs were zeroed out, but the floor is now set at 60 percent of the 
1995 level. Funding would be approved through December 1. The funding 
levels are an issue of concern to a number of us. But the most 
important concern, and the one that I think has drawn the greatest 
degree of anxiety across this country, and certainly the issue for 
which the President has said there is no compromise, is the increase in 
the premium that senior citizens will pay as a result of mistakes that 
we made in prior years in setting that premium.
  I think everybody needs to understand that. We made a mistake several 
years ago. Instead of setting the premium at 25 percent and locking 
that percentage in for part B Medicare recipients, stipulated a dollar 
amount that we believed to represent a 25 percent payment. In doing so, 
we overestimated the amount it would take to reach 25 percent. As a 
result, the real calculation was not 25 percent; it was 31.5 percent.
  We realized it. We all concluded, I think virtually unanimously, 
several years ago when this issue came up that it ought not be 31.5 
percent; it ought to be 25 percent. We locked it into law. We set a 
timeframe within which that should happen. And now as a result of a 
realization that they need additional revenue for a lot of other 
reasons, including this tax cut, our Republican colleagues are 
suggesting that we legalize the glitch indefinitely.
  That is the issue. Should we lock in an amount higher than we 
anticipated or intended, an amount we accidentally locked in several 
years ago, just to come up with revenue necessary to do what the 
Republican agenda has dictated? Should we effectively increase that 
premium to provide the pool of resources that they need for tax breaks 
for the wealthy?
  Mr. President, what the President has said is, that is not 
negotiable. That Medicare premium increase is not something that 
belongs in the continuing resolution. That is something that has to be 
taken out. We can negotiate funding levels, and we can negotiate other 
matters with regard to how the continuing resolution ought to be 
drafted, but there ought not be any misunderstanding with regard to the 
importance of Medicare premiums. That ought to be off the table. That 
ought not to be in the continuing resolution. And that is where we are.
  Mr. DODD. Would my distinguished Democratic leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I have been asking this question for the last couple of 
hours, Mr. President. Maybe the Democratic leader can enlighten me. I 
do not understand for the life of me why we are attacking Medicare 
premiums in a continuing resolution.
  Is there some reason why Medicare is being incorporated in a 
temporary extension of the continuing resolution? Why are we taking 
something so critically important to millions of Americans, not only to 
the direct recipients, but their families who depend upon this, to 
avoid the kind of cataclysmic crisis that can affect them if they are 
afflicted with some serious illness? Why are we taking that as a 
subject, which I think requires serious study and analysis before we 
make changes in that program, why is that being incorporated by the 
Republicans in a continuing resolution? What is the value and purpose 
of putting it here?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Well, I will respond to the distinguished Senator, I do 
not know what the answer is. I have to assume that they believe 
increasing premiums is more important than running the Government, is 
more important than getting a continuing resolution, is more important 
than any other priority out there. It is the most important issue for 
them today. Raising those premiums has the priority that no other issue 
has as we consider all of the other complexities involved in this 
debate.
  What is even more important to me is what this action says to the 
American people in general and American seniors in particular. It says 
that we are going to ask seniors to pay more 

[[Page S 16997]]
before we ask doctors to take less. We are going to ask seniors to pay 
more before we ask anybody else involved in Medicare, who may be 
beneficiaries in other ways, to give some, to sacrifice as well. That, 
to me, is the fundamental inequality here that is the most 
disheartening thing. We are asking seniors--many of whom can ill-afford 
it--to sacrifice before we have asked anybody else to contribute, 
before we have even come to any conclusions about what may be involved 
in the overall Medicare reform effort that many of us would like to see 
at some point this year.
  We realize we have to change Medicare. We realize that the trust fund 
has to be made solvent. We also realize this Medicare increase in a 
short-term, stop-gap funding bill has absolutely nothing to do with the 
trust fund. Now, not one dollar of this premium increase goes to the 
trust fund--nothing. It all goes to deficit reduction or to the tax 
cut, one or the other, most likely to the tax breaks. So that is really 
the issue here. We are holding hostage senior citizens asking them to 
do something no one else is required to do. And so it is 
understandable, it seems to me, that the President is resolute in his 
determination to veto the continuing resolution as long as that is in 
the bill.

  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Nevada and then to the 
Senator from California.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the leader yielding. I say 
through the Chair to my friend from Connecticut, this Senator believes 
that the reason the premium is being maintained is to fuel money for 
the tax cut, the tax breaks. What other reason could there be that 
there is this clamor to raise all this money on a document, a piece of 
legislation, that it is untoward this would happen at a time when the 
country is about to shut down that they would hold so tight to this? It 
is my belief that it is to fuel the tax cuts, the tax breaks.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague----
  Mr. DASCHLE. I retain the floor, and I will be happy to yield to the 
Senator from Connecticut to respond, and then I will yield to the 
Senator from California.
  Mr. DODD. I raised the issue earlier. As I understand it, in this 
continuing resolution, so we avoid the shutdown that will occur in a 
few hours, there is a simple one-sentence provision that would strike 
``November 13'' and put in ``December 1,'' which would avoid shutting 
down the Federal Government tonight, as I understand it.
  What we have now sent down to the President is some 15 or 16 pages, 
all getting involved in Medicare language, all of this language, 
extraneous language.
  What my colleague from Nevada is saying is if they do not include an 
increased cost in Medicare to the beneficiaries out there, then this 
tax break that goes to the top income earners in America would be in 
trouble; is that the point?
  Mr. REID. That was the point I was making to my friend from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I find that incredible. I ask the distinguished Democratic 
leader, with all the other things going on, what is the logic of saying 
we are going to take care of those in the upper-income levels with tax 
breaks at the cost of those who, as I understand it and he can correct 
me if I am wrong, but the median income of a Medicare recipient in 
America is $17,000, unless you are a woman on Medicare and then your 
median income is $8,500 a year, that the premiums of those people are 
going to go up if this becomes law in order to provide a tax break for 
people who have six-figure incomes. What is the logic in all of that, I 
ask the Democratic leader?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I tell the Senator from Connecticut, I do not know what 
the logic is. The numbers the Senator from Connecticut referred to are 
accurate. The fact is that a vast majority of senior citizens today 
make less than $17,000. In South Dakota, and in many rural States, they 
make less than $15,000. This $11 increase per month is more than many 
of them today have available for some of the fundamental needs they 
face each and every year. Their choice, in some cases, is whether they 
have prescription drugs, whether they pay a heating bill, whether they 
are able to go into town, or whether they are able to buy groceries. 
All that is affected by whether or not this goes into law tonight or 
tomorrow or the next day.
  So the Senator from Connecticut is absolutely right. This is not an 
easy choice for many people out there who may be watching and wondering 
what is this all about. But that is what this fight is all about, 
protecting what limited purchasing power they have, recognizing a 
commitment we made 2 years ago that we would correct the inadvertent 
mistake we made in the Medicare law in the first place. That is what 
this is about.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I just want to thank the Democratic leader 
for coming over to the floor, because I believe that the people of 
America want answers to these questions that he is raising, I say to my 
friend, and the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Nevada and 
others, the Senator from Massachusetts--both Senators from 
Massachusetts who were involved in this.
  I say to my friend that 83 percent of those on Social Security earn 
less than $25,000 a year--83 percent. So we are talking about something 
being slipped into a continuing resolution which is extraneous to that 
continuing resolution, has nothing to do with whether this Government 
can function, and the reason the Republicans are doing it is they do 
not have the guts to vote up or down on it.
  The fact of the matter is, they want to force the President of the 
United States into signing this thing, and he will not do it, and God 
bless him for that, because he is standing up for our grandmothers and 
our grandfathers.
  I have a couple of questions for my leader. The symmetry of these 
cuts in Medicare and these tax breaks for the wealthiest cannot be 
overlooked, as brought out by my friend from Nevada, and it can, in 
fact, be the only answer: $270 billion in cuts in Medicare and $245 
billion in tax breaks. If you earn over $350,000, I say to my leader, 
you get back $5,600 a year.
  But I would like to address my leader's attention to this chart, 
because I think it is important that the people understand we are 
really talking about Social Security here, not just Medicare, because 
what happens is, this is a time for seniors on Social Security to get 
their cost-of-living adjustment and their Medicare premium comes out of 
their Social Security cost-of-living adjustment.
  If the Republicans have their way, and if they slip this Medicare 
premium increase through--and I know that the President will not stand 
for it--but if they do, I ask the leader to explain this chart because 
what we see here is that the poorest seniors would wind up losing 98 
percent of their COLA on Social Security. The seniors who average 
$7,000 a year would lose 66 percent of their Social Security COLA, and 
the wealthiest would lose 52 percent. I say wealthiest, that is over 
$10,000 a year.
  So you can see here the devastation that is being wrought. In other 
words, the seniors look forward to their cost-of-living adjustment 
because their food bills go up, their cleaning bills go up, and now it 
is being eaten by the Republican increase in the Medicare premium.
  So I just ask my leader to comment on this connection because 
Republicans are always saying, ``Well, we don't touch Social 
Security,'' but the bottom line is, they would do so.
  I also ask my leader to comment on why he believes they would put in 
extraneous materials into these bills that repeal 25 years of 
environmental law, why they would do it this way, why they would bring 
in criminal law reform on this, because I think people are confused. 
They understand that, as Senator Dodd has pointed out, one sentence can 
take care of the short-term problem, and then we will have the fight.
  So I ask my leader to comment on the impact of Social Security 
recipients of this stealth increase in premium, plus the whole notion 
of adding these extraneous matters to what should be a very 
straightforward continuing resolution and debt increase.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from California makes two very good points. 
Obviously, the increases that we are talking about here would have a 
devastating impact. I was home in South 

[[Page S 16998]]
Dakota this last weekend. I wish I could tell the Senator from 
California precisely how many people I had the opportunity to talk to 
about this very matter. But time and time again, people on the street, 
in meetings, at dinner, in restaurants would come up to me and say, 
``It is so important that you win this fight. It is so important that 
you not let happen what we are told could happen if the President or if 
the Democrats in Congress lose their resolve.''
  This has nothing to do with cutting growth. What this is cutting is 
seniors' wallets, the opportunity for senior citizens to live in some 
dignity. This is telling senior citizens that the commitment we made to 
them is over, that somehow they are going to have to give, even though 
no one else involved in Medicare gives at all.
  We have $17 or $18 billion in fraud and abuse out there, according to 
the General Accounting Office. We are not going after $1 of fraud and 
abuse, yet we are telling seniors that they have to pay increases in 
their part B premiums and that they will provide the sole source of 
revenue increases for whatever reason? It is outrageous to make that 
kind of a statement.
  Never mind the commitment. Never mind the impact that it might have 
on seniors. The very thought that seniors are the only ones being asked 
to give tonight, to me, is inexcusable and just flat wrong.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield? I remember when the Republicans 
with great fanfare said, ``We are going to save Medicare.''
  Well, we all knew what it was about. They needed to find the money 
for the tax cut, so they dreamed up this number of $270 billion. Even 
though the Democratic leader and those of us who worked on it knows it 
takes $89 billion to save Medicare, they are going to go after it to 
the tune of $270 billion.
  One of the things they said which I really could not disagree with 
was, ``And this time we will go after the very wealthy seniors who are 
on Medicare and ask them to pay just a little bit more.''
  I say to my leader, after we have seen their proposal, is there 
anything in this continuing resolution where they have laid on this 
increase in premiums to seniors that differentiates between those who 
earn under $5,000 or those who earn over $100,000? Do they have a 
sliding scale?
  Or are they asking seniors, many of whom, as my friend has pointed 
out, have to choose, literally, between eating and buying a 
pharmaceutical product to keep them alive--is there anything in this 
Republican plan that makes that distinction between the poorest senior 
and the wealthiest senior?
  Mr. DASCHLE. There is no distinction at all, I say to the Senator 
from California. That, really, is another part of the inequity here.
  The Senator asked why would we do this on a continuing resolution? I 
think one of the reasons they are proposing we do it on a continuing 
resolution is that they hope that by holding a gun to the head of the 
President, the President is going to cave, the President will give up 
his resolve and say, ``If that is what it takes to have a continuing 
resolution, we will do it.''
  Mr. President, the President has made it very clear that it does not 
matter what form a continuing resolution may take. If it comes to him 
with this extraneous and unfair provision in it, it will be vetoed. 
There is no question he will veto any version of a continuing 
resolution that incorporates the Medicare provision in it. It does not 
matter. This Republican strategy is not working. They can use as many 
props and news conferences as they want, golf clubs and waffles--which, 
in my view, are extraordinarily sophormoric and unfortunate. That 
belittles the congressional process. It demeans this debate. It has 
nothing to do with the serious, serious, consequences of what it is we 
are talking about here. And it will not change the outcome.
  I hope that our House colleagues and the Republican leadership will 
understand how unfortunate it is that they would demean this debate in 
the way that they have over the last weekend. There is no place for 
that kind of sophormoric and childish behavior on national television.
  That happened. It is unfortunate it happened. I hope we can raise the 
level of debate and take into account the gravity and the seriousness 
of situations that we are discussing here tonight. That really is 
something that I think all Americans--Republican and Democrat--can 
agree to. We should raise the level of debate and not use these silly 
props, thinking that is somehow making a point. It is not making a 
point.
  The point is we have to get back to the real issue here. The real 
issue is we can pass a continuing resolution tonight. We have a few 
hours left. Do it before it is too late. Pass a clean CR. Leave this 
Medicare debate for another time. Do not ask seniors to do something 
you are not asking anybody else to.
  If we can do that, we can go home tonight. Federal workers can come 
tomorrow and this issue would be resolved.
  Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DODD. There is something I would like to inquire of the 
Democratic leader because he made a passing reference to it. There may 
be those saying tonight we have to deal with entitlements. We have to 
deal with Medicare. We have to deal with Medicaid. I do not think 
anyone here is suggesting that is not a legitimate point.
  The point is this: We are dealing with a 30-year old program that 
took people in poverty in this country--between 35 percent and 40 
percent of people over the age of 65 were living in poverty in 1960 in 
this country; only 45 percent of them had any health insurance at all. 
Because of Medicare we have taken people out of poverty and given them, 
in their retiring years, a sense of dignity, not made them wealthy 
people, not provided them with great affluence, but merely taken away 
the legitimate fear that people have that an illness will come along 
and destroy life savings, make it difficult for their own children to 
be able to raise their families and educate their kids without having 
to worry about a catastrophic illness, bankrupting two generations in a 
family.
  That is why we have Medicare. That is why it has been so successful.
  As I understand it, what is being proposed here will increase the 
premiums for these people on Medicare. Obviously, we need to deal with 
the long-term health care security issues. Medicare is a legitimate 
subject of debate. I hear the Democratic leader saying so.
  The point is you do not try to muscle this through on a continuing 
resolution. I ask if that is not the point he is making? that, in fact, 
it ought to be, even if people do not understand all of the nuances of 
the procedural debates, that the suspicions of average Americans ought 
to be raised when they see something as critical as Medicare coming 
along and all of a sudden it is slipped into a provision like this, a 
major change, a major change in Medicare, slipped into a continuing 
resolution that would then lock into law a fundamental change in one of 
the most critical programs affecting millions of Americans.
  The issue is not should we debate this issue of how do we provide for 
long-term health security, but slipping this matter into a continuing 
resolution that could be adopted with a one-sentence provision, 
avoiding the shutdown of the Federal Government, literally thousands of 
people in this Federal Government not knowing whether to show up for 
work tomorrow, all because there is a fear about debating this issue in 
the normal course of congressional business.
  Is that not what the Democratic leader is suggesting?
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator consider one comment?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me respond to the Senator and then I am happy to 
yield without losing my right to the floor.
  The Senator from Connecticut said it as clearly and succinctly as 
anyone has tonight. The issue is not, should we address real reform in 
Medicare? The issue is, is this the vehicle on which to do it? Is this 
the night to do it? And, when we get to the proper vehicle, we must ask 
ourselves, is this the right way to do it?
  Do we hold all Federal employees hostage to a resolution of this 
fundamental question about whether we ought to change Medicare at all, 
tonight, under these circumstances?
  The Senator would conclude, as I concluded, that this is not the 
time, 

[[Page S 16999]]
this is not the place, this is not the forum, this is not the right 
way, this is not sending the right message to seniors. This provision 
ought to be stricken.
  That is what we are suggesting. I think the Senator is absolutely 
correct in his assumption as he proposes the question tonight. I am 
happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I just hope as my two colleagues are 
discussing an issue of Medicare, particularly the Senator from 
Connecticut, I find that you omitted any reference to the report of the 
trustees, trustees appointed by the President of the United States, who 
came back and clearly provided this body, the Congress, with a report 
saying that Medicare is going broke and that something has to be done. 
I hope the Senator, as he addresses this issue, would include reference 
to that report.
  I, myself, am still hopeful. I just had a brief meeting with the 
majority leader. There are conscientious efforts underway to resolve 
this impasse. I am privileged to represent a great many Federal 
employees. I would like to see it resolved.
  When I hear debate like this and no reference to that trustees' 
report, I feel it is selective argument.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me retain the floor and say the answer to that 
comment is very simple: The increase in premium that the majority has 
included in the continuing resolution does not solve the solvency 
problem by one nickel. It has absolutely nothing to do with solvency. 
It has nothing to do with the trust fund. It has nothing to do with the 
long-term projections of the future of the trust fund. It has nothing 
to do with the trustees' report.
  The trustees said we have to resolve the trust fund solvency issue 
and, toward that end, we have to find ways to save $89 billion. Nothing 
in part B changes or premium increases has anything to do with the 
trust fund, which is in part A.
  That is why both of us have expressed our grave concern about what we 
are doing here. Perhaps if the premium increase had something to do 
with the trust fund, we could better understand--though I would still 
argue that this should be decided in the broader context of Medicare 
reform--the emergency need to include it in a continuing resolution. 
But it does not. There is absolutely no connection.
  That makes it all the more critical, it seems to us, to take some 
time to consider whether or not it is fair to ask seniors to do 
something that we are not asking anybody else to do, to determine 
whether or not even in the overall context of Medicare reform this has 
a place. Certainly, I hope the Senator from Virginia would agree.
  Just to finish, certainly the Senator from Virginia would agree that 
without hearings, without any full appreciation of what it is we are 
doing here, to add it to the continuing resolution is not a prudent 
thing to do.
  I yield again to the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I appreciate the Senator's yielding.
  My good friend from Virginia has raised the issue of the trustees' 
report. The trustees' report from last year painted a darker picture 
than this year, but I did not hear a single voice being raised about 
the condition of the trust fund a year ago. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, we are now cutting $270 billion in the proposal out of the 
Medicare trust fund, as the distinguished Democratic leader has pointed 
out, Mr. President. No one can explain to anyone why that number was 
chosen, except in the context of the tax breaks of $245 billion. The 
only way you can pay for them is that size of a cut in Medicaid. There 
is no relationship between the size of that cut and what the trustees 
reported were the proposals with Medicare. That is point No. 2.

  Point No. 3 is the one the Democratic leader has made in the 
discussion here, that matter that is included in this resolution deals 
with part B, which does not have anything to do with the trust fund 
whatsoever. So it is totally unrelated.
  The last point I would make is this one. Normally, here, when there 
is a matter of this import involving this many Americans and something 
as critical as their health care, you would think there might be a set 
of hearings where we, as Members of this body, would enjoy the benefit 
of people who spend every day working at these issues as to how we 
might fix this problem.
  There has not been a single day of hearings, not one, on this issue. 
We have had 27 days of hearings on Whitewater. We had 11 days of 
hearings on Waco. We had 10 days of hearings on Ruby Ridge. And not 1 
day, not a single day, not 1 hour, not 1 hour of hearings on Medicare.
  Mr. President, for 37 million Americans, their safety net in health 
care is being written into this piece of paper, passed without even the 
considerations of what the implications are for people. That is not the 
way to legislate. That is not the way to deal with a legitimate issue 
of how you bring some trust and some faith and some soundness to the 
Medicare trust funds.
  So for those reasons some of us, as I said a moment ago, object to 
this because, frankly, we are just writing this into this particular 
proposal. We are not really examining how to fix this issue.
  As I said a moment ago, the debate is not whether or not we ought to 
do something about the trust fund. The Democratic leader has spoken on 
numerous occasions about the importance of doing that. We all 
understand that. But that is not what this proposal is. It is written 
in here primarily, as was pointed out earlier by the Senator from 
Nevada, to provide the resources for a tax break.
  Here we are, going to shut down the Federal Government in 3 or 4 
hours, thousands of people are either going to lose pay or be sitting 
home wondering what is going to happen tomorrow, and it comes down to 
this issue: Whether or not you can muscle the President into signing a 
continuing resolution which goes right at the heart of senior citizens, 
when a simple resolution extending the continuing resolution for a week 
or two would avoid the problem altogether.
  It is a backhanded way of dealing with a very serious, very 
legitimate issue that must be dealt with in a more profound way than we 
are this evening. I thank the Democratic leader.

                          ____________________