[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5818-S5819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MEDICARE WILL GO BANKRUPT IN 2001

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Medicare trustees have now released 
their report on the state of the Medicare trust fund, and the news is 
not good. Instead of going bankrupt in the year 2002, as they had 
previously forecasted, the trustees now conclude that Medicare will go 
bankrupt in the year 2001--just 5 years from now.
  For the past year and a half, this Republican Congress has attempted 
to deal honestly and forthrightly with the impending Medicare meltdown. 
We have put forward a budget that would protect, preserve, and 
strengthen Medicare by reducing the unsustainable rate of growth, while 
still allowing for a healthy growth rate.
  We did not claim that our plan was perfect or that it solved a long-
term problem. But it was a real attempt to alleviate a crisis that will 
immediately impact 37 million Americans and will have repercussions on 
tens of millions more.
  Along with our proposals to provide for short-term solvency in the 
Medicare trust funds, I also suggested, on numerous occasions, that 
President Clinton appoint a blue ribbon, bipartisan advisory committee, 
similar to the one I served on in 1983 that rescued Social Security, to 
help deal with this long-term crisis in Medicare. I was interested to 
see that Secretary Shalala made a similar recommendation today.
  My response to the initial report of the Medicare trustees was based 
on my belief that leadership means more than just talking about the 
problem; it also means doing something to solve it. It is also clear to 
me that if we are to be successful, we must put politics aside and work 
on a bipartisan basis.
  Unfortunately, President Clinton has been unwilling to do that. Ever 
since the trustees--three of whom are members of the President's 
administration--issued their original report, the administration has 
chosen to either ignore the warning of Medicare's impending bankruptcy, 
or to engage in a very sad campaign to frighten America's senior 
citizens.
  It is an undeniable fact that the Republican proposal allowed 
spending for Medicare beneficiaries to increase from $4,800 to $7,200 
per person over 7 years. It is also an undeniable fact that in their 
ill-fated health care reform proposal the Clinton administration 
advocated slowing Medicare's rate of growth. Despite that fact, 
however, the President vetoed our Medicare proposal. We have heard 
nothing--nothing at all--but attacks on Republicans for ``slashing and 
cutting'' Medicare. When the President was asked not long ago why he 
continued to use these terms even though they are not true--and I 
happened to be listening to the press conference--he said that the 
media made him do it. Maybe they did. But he has been doing it.
  With the release of today's report, the inescapable conclusion is 
that, while the rhetoric flew, Medicare was put at further risk. Those 
who say that talk is cheap should now know that 18 months of misleading 
rhetoric may have gained points in the opinion polls, but it also put 
Medicare another $90 billion-plus in the red.
  The bottom line is that the 37 million Americans who depend on 
Medicare deserve better. Future generations of Americans who will need 
Medicare deserve better.
  The choice is clear. America's leaders can spend the next 5 months 
focusing on the next election, thereby allow Medicare to grow ever 
closer to bankruptcy; or we can focus on the next generation, and do 
what we must to save Medicare.
  It will not be easy nor simple. The solution cannot be a shell game, 
moving money from one part of Medicare to another. A tax increase is 
also not the answer.
  I call on the President to come forward with real initiatives so we 
can preserve the Medicare Program and to join with Republicans on a 
bipartisan basis, as I have proposed before, to address this very 
serious problem.
  So we have 37 million Americans who depend on Medicare. That is the 
bottom line. Future generations are looking to whether or not there 
will be any Medicare trust fund or any Medicare benefits. I think we 
need to fix Medicare just as we fixed Social Security in 1983 on a 
bipartisan, nonpartisan basis.

[[Page S5819]]

  I remember walking onto the Senate floor in 1983 right in that 
aisleway when we thought everything had evaporated--collapsed. I met 
Senator Moynihan coming in the door. And we stood here and talked for 2 
or 3 minutes about we could not let this happen; there were too many 
millions of Americans who depended on Social Security. So together we 
got it back on track. And the end result is we did in effect rescue 
Social Security.
  Now someone is going to be asked to do the same with Medicare. I 
would call on the President to stop running the TV commercials, to stop 
trying to scare senior citizens, to stop trying to frighten seniors 
with some of the ads paid for by union dues. Millions and millions and 
millions of dollars have been spent on political attacks and TV attacks 
on Republicans who want to fix, preserve, and strengthen Medicare.
  Today is the day of reckoning. Today even the administration says, 
``Oh, well. We ought to fix this.'' We are going to fix it, or it is 
going to be bankrupt. And I believe it will be fixed.
  So the President now I understand would like to work it out. He has 
had a whole year to bash Republicans, a whole year to scare senior 
citizens, and now he understands--at least the people around him 
understand--the seriousness of this shell game.
  So I call on the President to come forward with real initiative so we 
can preserve the Medicare Program and join with us. As I said, our plan 
is not perfect either. Maybe we can come together. This is a very 
serious problem. It is not going to go away. It is not going to go 
away. The trustees' report is very clear on that particular area. It is 
not going to go away. We have to fix it. We have to stand up and be 
counted.
  We cannot have it both ways. We cannot scare seniors on the one hand 
and fix it on the other. It is time to tell the American people the 
truth. It is time to tell the American people--to give the American 
people the facts.
  So I would be prepared--I am certain my colleagues will be prepared--
to work with the administration if in fact they want to work on a 
bipartisan basis. This is serious business--37 million Americans who 
want us to make progress to do it the right way--to preserve and 
strengthen Medicare.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. DOLE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I referred earlier to the Bob Dole we know and love. I 
earlier remarked because he and I have worked to try to balance this 
budget over the years. More particularly I put in the Record a 
statement, and the vote and record made of the Greenspan commission 
upon which the Senator served where they recommended that Social 
Security after a period of years be off budget. Of course, the vote the 
Senator and I both joined in doing just that. In 1990 we put it off 
budget. The law was signed by President Bush. Now we have the Senator's 
amendment, and he got my vote. If we just do exactly what he intends, I 
think here in section 7, ``total receipts shall include all receipts of 
the U.S. Government except those derived from borrowing.'' That has 
been interpreted as borrowing from the public. Why borrow from Social 
Security? In other words, we owe Social Security $530 billion. These 
budgets which have been put out by both sides all use Social Security. 
So by the year 2002 we will owe $1.1 trillion.

  So you can pick up not only my vote. By the letter we sent --I have 
talked to these Members; five of us, and at least more--pass this 
constitutional amendment by just protecting borrowing from the public 
but in conformance with the law which the Senator and I support; not 
borrow from Social Security. In other words really eliminate the 
deficit rather than move the deficit from the general Government over 
to the Social Security fund.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate first that I acknowledge the Senator's 
efforts over the years to face up to the budget problem. He has 
demonstrated it with his votes. I think in this case though--I do not 
have the amendment before me. I know what it says. I think if we do 
that over a period of years, others would like to do it right now--we 
phase it out. I think the Senator is saying he would prefer we do it 
immediately. We have been doing it the way proposed here for some time. 
Even in the 7-year budget plan we proposed, of course, we did not use 
Social Security.
  So our view is--my view on this balanced budget which I will discuss 
tomorrow--is that we need to make it very clear precisely what we are 
doing because we need this discipline. We need to send this to the 
States, and give the States a chance to ratify it. If Kansas does not 
want to ratify it, or South Carolina, or Arizona, or Idaho, that is 
their right. But if three-fourths of the States do not ratify the 
amendment it does not became part of the Constitution.
  I think the Senator from South Carolina also shares our views on 
Medicare. He is one Senator who will not stand here and let Medicare go 
belly up. I hope that there will be enough bipartisan support that 
whatever the problem is can be remedied and remedied very quickly.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If the distinguished Senator will yield, we would not 
do it immediately. In other words it would be part of the Senator's 
joint resolution, or balanced budget amendment, to the Constitution, 
and as the Senator's comments just indicated it would go back to the 
States for several years to be ratified. In the meantime, it would be 
in there and protected but it would not control immediately. And while 
they are ratifying we could be working, as the Senator indicated, to 
bring it into line without using Social Security funds.
  So I do not see the harm done if we could just include that. We can 
pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  Mr. DOLE. I would be pleased to look at anything the Senator 
suggests. The Senator from Idaho, I believe, has about the same 
approach. At least it might be the same result obtained by the Senator 
from South Carolina. He will be our next speaker.

                          ____________________