[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S26-S28]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CHANGING THE SYSTEM

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to say that I think we have had some 
very useful discussions today, although obviously the substantive 
discussions and negotiations are, we hope, going on elsewhere. But I 
wish to begin by reemphasizing what my distinguished colleague from 
Ohio has just said in the past few minutes about the importance of 
changing the system.
  I had the privilege of serving as chief executive of the State of 
Missouri for 8 years, and I was convinced, as were almost all of my 
other colleagues who were Governors at the time, Republicans and 
Democrats, that we could do a far better job in handling many of the 
programs partially funded by the Federal Government if we did not have 
all of the strings and restrictions and red tape put upon us. That is 
why we have moved in this session of Congress to change the programs 
themselves, to make them more effective and efficient, not just to save 
money. Obviously, we cannot continue to spend, particularly on 
entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, at the ever-increasing 
rates of growth, without destroying these very programs, bankrupting 
the Government, and destroying our economy. But it is not enough, as 
has been pointed out by my colleague from Ohio, merely to cut the 
amount of money that we are turning over to the States. If we tell 
them, ``You have to keep spending the money the way we tell you but we 
are not going to give you as much as you have been getting, or not as 
much as an increase as you have been getting,'' then we risk disaster. 
We need fundamental changes--allowing the States to develop responsive 
and responsible, effective and caring programs to meet the needs of 
those who are recipients of the programs, within these budgetary 
constraints.
  Mr. President, in my second term as Governor, we fought and fought 
and fought to get waivers from the Department of Health and Human 
Services, now HCFA, so we could start a managed-care program for 
Medicaid, so we could give the providers selected by the Medicaid 
recipient the opportunity to do the best job they could of keeping that 
recipient healthy.
  It made a tremendous amount of difference. More emphasis was placed 
on keeping people healthy, on preventive health care, on regular 
checkups, on routine well-baby care that kept the recipients well, kept 
them out of the hospital, kept them from lost time. The result was that 
we saved some money but people on Medicaid in my State were a lot 
happier, and healthier, with the program. And those examples, those 
experiments are being carried out in every State in the Nation. If we 
only could change the program so that State legislators and Governors 
who are just as concerned as the Members of this body about taking care 
of those in need could make those innovations, I am convinced we can do 
it.
  Now, we have had, as I have said, much discussion about differences 
in policy, differences in policy that lie at the base of this balanced 
budget debate, but part of the problem is, I think, some of the facts 
are being misstated. We have heard earlier today about how Federal 
employees are being held hostage; that it is an unheard of shutdown of 
the Federal Government.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, in the time I have been here when 
there was a Democratically controlled Congress and a Republican 
President, there were shutdowns in the Federal Government when Congress 
and the President did not agree. To say that it is unheard of is not 
true. I believe even during the period of the Carter administration, 
when there was a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, there 
were a number of periods of time when there was no budget or continuing 
resolution in place. As a matter of fact, some of my colleagues, on a 
bipartisan basis, today were talking about how the Democratic majority 
in Congress in 1990 toughened up the Anti-Deficiency Act to make it 
more painful, more painful for the executive branch to try to continue 
to operate in the absence of a continuing resolution, and, yes, it 
appears that some of those chickens have come home to roost now.
  But let us make clear one thing. Part of this responsibility, the 
responsibility that some of the agencies of Government are shut down, 
is on the back of the President. I can speak from personal experience, 
having managed the bill that funds veterans, housing, environment, 
space, emergency management, and other areas--the VA-HUD and 
independent agencies appropriations bill. We passed the bill. We passed 
the bill that made over 12 percent cuts from last year's original 
appropriations.
  Now, during the summer of last year, in a rescission bill, the 
Congress, with the President's signature, rescinded some of those funds 
from the previous year because that bill, VA-HUD, was making too many 
promises that could not be kept in out-years. When you make a promise 
in housing, for example, to provide housing over a number of years, you 
have to appropriate the budget authority up front, but then each year 
as you carry out that commitment, the expenditure of that authority--
the outlays--are scored against the aggregate budgetary limitations for 
that year.
  So we have had to cut back significantly, and the President agreed 
when he signed the rescission bill that we would cut back on the 
commitments in VA-HUD. So it was with surprise that when we tried to 
negotiate with the White House to find out how we could change the 
fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill to accommodate their needs and 
their desires, the only thing we got from Mr. Panetta, who was up here 
on the Hill, was a statement that, well, we just need to spend $2 
billion more, just give us $2 billion more.
  I explained to him, as every Member of this body who is familiar with 
the appropriations process knows, we cannot give $2 billion more. We 
have to stay within the budget. But I suggested that if they were 
willing to work with us, we could make adjustments within the dollars 
available and send the President the bill, he could sign that bill, and 
then to the extent he is able to reach a later agreement which might 
put more money into the various appropriated accounts, we could come 
back by a supplemental appropriation or a continuing resolution to add 
money to the Veterans' Administration, Housing and Urban Development, 
Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the National Science Foundation, and all of those 
agencies.
  What happened? Well, frankly, the President vetoed the bill. The 
President vetoed the bill because we did not spend as much money as he 
wanted. That is understandable. Everybody who likes government likes to 
spend more money. But if you don't want to cut spending in domestic 
appropriated accounts, you have to find someplace else to take it. You 
could, for example, cut back on the money going into entitlement 
programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Actually, we have a very good 
example of that. The President and Mrs. Clinton back in 1993 and 1994, 
as my colleagues will recall, came before the Congress--you probably 
have seen film clips of them recently--and said we really must slow the 
rate of growth of Medicare to 6 to 7 percent a year.
  Mr. President, they were correct because as the Clinton trustees of 
Medicare and Social Security have said, if we do not reform part A of 
Medicare, it is going to go broke, it is going to run out of money in 
the year 2002.
  The President was right when he said we have to slow the rate of 
growth. But not only do we have to slow the rate of growth, just as my 
friend from Ohio said, we have to change the structure of Medicare; we 
have to change the structure of Medicare because a top-down Government 
price-fixing program in health care has not worked. 

[[Page S27]]

  It is important that we give senior citizens choices, choices so they 
can choose from among private plans which will have to manage the costs 
effectively and give the recipients, the Medicare recipients, the kinds 
of services they need if they are to compete.
  The President and Mrs. Clinton were very clear when they came before 
the Congress and said it is not a cut when you say we are going to slow 
the rate of growth to a reasonable amount of 6 to 7 percent. How 
interesting it is to hear now representatives of the President, the ads 
run by their supporters, saying Medicare is going to be slashed because 
the Republican Congress proposes to let it grow by 7.2 or even 7.4 
percent.
  Mr. President, we have to save Medicare. If you are talking about 
just cutting a little bit of money out of Medicare, you are not going 
to really save it; you are just going to squeeze it down and make it 
more difficult for Medicare recipients to get doctors and hospitals and 
other health care providers to give them the kind of services they 
need. You need to change the program and you need to slow the rate of 
growth in the program. You tell me how much you want to slow the rate 
of growth of the Medicare Program, and we can probably tell you how 
long past 2002 you will keep the program healthy, how long before it 
will go bankrupt.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be granted another 
5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, as I was saying, how long do you want to keep Medicare 
healthy? Personally, I would like to see Medicare kept healthy, not 
only for those who are on Medicare right now, but those who will be 
coming on, people my age and people younger.
  We are going to have to make changes to slow the rate of growth. One 
proposal to save $70 to $80 billion was estimated only to save it for 
maybe 2 more years. I do not think, Mr. President, we ought to go 
through all this battle and all this heartache and say that Medicare 
will not go bankrupt in 2002, it will go bankrupt in 2005. We can do 
better than that. We have to implement real reforms which will assure 
the financial solvency of this critical program well into the 
foreseeable future.
  I hope we would stop the posturing and stop the ads and stop the 
claims that Medicare is being savaged. It begins to appear to me, Mr. 
President, that there is something else at work here. The President of 
the United States told the American people in the campaign and told us 
in the State of the Union Message in 1993 he wanted a balanced budget. 
Then just a month and a half or so ago, before Congress sent him a 
continuing resolution, he agreed that he would sit down and develop 
with the Congress a balanced budget reaching balance in the year 2002 
on the basis of Congressional Budget Office scoring.
  If he is willing to do that, and if he is willing to take a hard look 
and a responsible look at how we keep entitlement programs from going 
bankrupt, and how we keep it from destroying us, then there is plenty 
of room to negotiate as far as I am concerned. If I were a negotiator, 
I would say, we put it all on the table. I would not put more taxes on 
the table because we tried the taxes and that did not work. Jacking up 
taxes in 1993 got only about a third of what we expected out of it.
  It is time that we cut. If the President would come forward and deal 
in good faith, we could reach that agreement in a very short time. But 
what I am hearing from the press, some of my colleagues who have 
friends in the White House, the political advisers are saying, ``Great, 
don't move. Don't move, Mr. President. You've got it just where you 
want it. You have talked about a balanced budget, but then you can come 
out and be against all the cuts. You don't have to agree to any of the 
cuts, just say you're for a balanced budget and then trash anybody who 
tries to put the details of a balanced budget together. And so long as 
you don't have to present one, then you're not going to be caught.''
  As one of my friends, a Member of this body on the other side of the 
aisle, has said--and obviously I will not identify him--he said it 
makes for great campaign rhetoric. It is great political fanfare, but 
it is a darn poor way to govern.
  Mr. President, I suggest that if the President wants to have a 
balanced budget, if he wants to carry through on his promise, then it 
is time, as we say in Missouri, to show me, come forward and say where 
you are going to make these necessary cuts. The White House is not 
doing that.
  I mentioned earlier that with respect to the small little 
appropriations bill I handled, veterans, HUD, independent agencies, 
they originally requested $2 billion, about $1.9 billion-plus. We have 
just received their latest request. Guess what? That latest request 
goes up to $2.5 billion. This is not negotiation. This is moving in the 
opposite direction.
  Mr. President, if anybody is negotiating with somebody who keeps 
taking steps farther and farther away from agreement, you will find out 
that is not negotiation, that is political game playing. Unfortunately, 
until we see any movement in the other direction, I have to say that 
this President apparently does not want a balanced budget.
  Dismiss all the rhetoric. His requests are for more spending in 
domestic areas. His requests are for less cuts in entitlement programs. 
Frankly, every time that the Congressional Budget Office has scored his 
proposal--and the Congressional Budget Office is the one who he said 
must judge those proposals --it shows that he misses in the 
neighborhood of two to three hundred billions of dollars.
  Mr. President, there is some talk about adding a few billion dollars 
more to domestic discretionary. Unfortunately, under the congressional 
budget resolution that will achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002, 
have to cut nondefense discretionary from $270 billion in 1996 to $258 
billion in 1997. That is a 4.4-percent decrease--a $12 billion 
expenditure reduction. If you are going to be putting more money in 
this year, you are going to make it a bigger cliff to fall off of next 
year.
  I would caution our negotiators not to go down that path of building 
in more spending now when we are going to have to have greater cuts 
next year and more program disruption.
  We could come to an agreement. I think there are lots of areas where 
we could agree. I will tell you that I am beginning to think that the 
only place that we can make an agreement is working with our colleagues 
in Congress. I have had the pleasure of working with the Senator from 
Maryland, Senator Mikulski. We have some policy differences, but those 
policy differences can be accommodated.
  I know that there are groups working together on a bipartisan basis, 
Senators Breaux and Chafee and others, Senator Nunn and many others, 
who are working to come up with a balanced budget, because I believe 
there are people in this body on both sides of the aisle who believe it 
is in the best interest of this country to get the Government back to 
work, to get the employees of the Federal Government doing what they 
are supposed to do, and put forward a responsible bipartisan plan to 
move this country toward a balanced budget in the year 2002.
  The Kerrey-Danforth commission, headed by Senator Kerrey from 
Nebraska and my former colleague, Senator Danforth from Missouri, 
pointed out how difficult the entitlement problems are. Unless we start 
dealing with those entitlement problems, we are not going to reach that 
result.
  So, Mr. President, it has been with only a slight degree of hope and 
a great deal of concern that I have watched the proceedings today. We 
have to find some areas of compromise. Unless we see the President 
willing to come forward and tell us where cuts are going to be made--
real cuts; not phony cuts, real cuts--then we are going to have to work 
within this body, and I hope we can find bipartisan cooperation in the 
House, to come to agreements on how to get spending under control, how 
to provide the vital services that are necessary, that must be 
provided, but to do so in a responsible way that does not cost our 
children and our grandchildren another $1 or $2 trillion worth of debt.
  Mr. President, this is a vitally important issue. The issue of the 
budget is going to define not only what our children face in the 
future, but our economy in the short term. I look forward 

[[Page S28]]
to working with Members of this body and ultimately Members of the 
other House in seeing if we cannot fashion what the President has been 
unwilling to come forth and produce, and that is a balanced budget.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________