[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 141 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12266-S12267]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         BIPARTISAN LEGISLATING

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take the floor to first commend one of 
our previous speakers this afternoon, the Senator from Rhode Island, 
the distinguished John Chafee, who worked as one of our leaders in a 
truly bipartisan fashion in the last Congress in our mainstream 
coalition, the so-called Chafee-Breaux coalition. We had an equal 
number of Democrats and Republicans who really worked very hard 
together to try to address some of the problems facing this country 
with the inability of the Congress to really come together in any kind 
of a bipartisan fashion.
  I have been in this business a relatively long number of years, and I 
think it becomes increasingly evident to me, and I think to many 
others, what the American people want us to do is to resolve our 
differences in a manner that makes sense, that is fair to the average 
American, and that gets the job done. More and more, people back home 
in my State of Louisiana want Congress to just make Government work. 
They elect us to do that. Yet they see so many times we seem to be 
engaged more in partisan battles that end up in stalemates and 
Government shutdowns, and people back home wonder whether what we do up 
here makes any sense at all.
  One of the bright spots in this Congress was the opportunity that I 
had to work with many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle as 
well as on the Republican side of the aisle in that mainstream 
coalition, the so-called Chafee-Breaux organization. I think we really 
made some progress. We came very close to actually adopting a budget. 
We got 46 votes in the Senate on a package that was a real effort in 
Medicare reform, Medicaid reform, and it had a tax cut in it. It had an 
adjustment to the Consumer Price Index, which most economists agree is 
incorrect and does not properly state the amount of inflation for the 
entitlement program adjustment.
  So we really, I think, went a long way toward getting a job done. We 
brought that package to the floor. It had welfare reform in it. It was 
debated. We had a surprisingly large number of votes from both sides of 
the aisle that said, yes, it is about time we move in this direction.
  I was very proud of that effort, and I commend the Senator from Rhode 
Island and everybody who worked in that effort. Unfortunately, many of 
the Members who worked with us are not going to be back in the next 
Congress because they have decided to voluntarily retire from Senate 
service, and they are going to be missed. Each and every one of them 
was a major contributor to this effort. While their physical presence 
may be missed, I think the work they have helped us begin will still be 
with us in the next Congress. Their advice and assistance and 
recommendations, I hope, will still be forthcoming because they were 
very valuable members of our group this year and can be of very 
valuable assistance in a positive fashion in the next Congress.
  So, having said that, I wish to also point out that there will be 
another day to bring this effort to the floor in the next Congress. We 
certainly intend to continue our organization, to continue our group, 
to see if we cannot bridge that gap between the two different aisles to 
form coalitions from the center out. I am absolutely convinced that the 
only way we solve difficult problems in any kind of a parliamentary 
body is by working from the center out in order to form a majority 
coalition. I am absolutely convinced that you can never start from the 
far left and hope to get a majority, nor can you start from the far 
right and ever hope to put together a majority on just about anything. 
But if you start from the middle and work out and gradually pick up 
more and more people, one day you find you have a majority, which is 
what a democracy demands from all of us. The people demand we make 
Government work. Hopefully, in the next Congress, we will be able to 
continue that effort and be even more successful than we were in this 
endeavor in this Congress.

  My colleague from Rhode Island talked a little bit about Medicare. 
That is one of the real challenges we are going to face in the next 
Congress. Medicare is so easy to politicize, and both sides have 
contributed to that effort. We have scared people about the collapse of 
the Medicare system. We have scared people about not adequately funding 
it. People must be very confused.
  I remember the story quite well when we were doing the debate on 
health care reform and we had the Clinton plan and there was a lot of 
discussion about it being too large, too much too soon, and all of 
those things.
  I remember coming back home to New Orleans and having a lady come up 
to me in the airport and say, ``You are all working on that health care 
reform back in Washington?'' I said, ``Yes, ma'am, we are.'' She said, 
``Whatever you do, don't let the Federal Government take over my 
Medicare.'' I said, ``OK. We won't let that happen.''
  Medicare is a Federal program. It was passed under the administration 
of 1965. It is run by the people in Washington. It is totally a Federal 
program. She loved it, but she sure did not want the Federal Government 
having anything to do with it, although the Federal Government had 
everything to do with it. So people are very concerned about this 
issue, and I think that we have to be careful and try to not politicize 
it as we are all guilty of doing too often.
  The facts are very scary. These are the facts. They are not 
Democratic facts or Republican facts. These are just facts about what 
is going to happen to Medicare from which so many seniors and their 
children benefit directly because mom and dad and grandfather and 
grandmother are taken care of.
  We have a heck of a problem facing us. The hospital insurance fund, 
the so-called part A of Medicare that pays for the hospital insurance, 
which is financed by a 2.9-percent payroll tax, which is awfully high, 
equally divided between workers and their employers--part B, of course, 
covers doctor bills--the latest figures we have show that

[[Page S12267]]

under part A, hospital insurance, how much we spend is exceeding how 
much we take in to such an extent that the trust fund, which now has a 
surplus of $121 billion, will be almost completely depleted by the year 
2000.
  That is not that far from now--completely depleted. The trust fund of 
$121 billion is gone in the year 2000, and it will run a deficit, which 
means we will not have enough money to pay the bills of up to $53 
billion the next year, the year 2001, unless we make some changes.

  CBO has projected the net Medicare outlays under the current law will 
increase at an average rate of 9.3 percent between this year and the 
year 2002. So we are going to be spending more money, and yet we are 
rapidly depleting the fund from which that money comes.
  Our bill last year was one of three main proposals. The President's 
proposal called for savings of $116 billion; the Breaux-Chafee, Chafee-
Breaux proposal had a savings of $154 billion over 7 years, and the 
Republican budget plan called for savings of $270 billion.
  There is one thing that is certain and nobody should disagree: We are 
going to have to do something, and it is not going to be easy. It is 
going to be painful. We can make it less political and less painful if 
we try to bring together organizations and come from the center aisle 
out to come up with something that works.
  Let us face it. It is a very inefficient system. The lady in New 
Orleans loved it, but she was not talking about how inefficient it is. 
It is inefficient because it is an old-style program. It is called fee-
for-service. You send the bill; we pay the bill. No matter what the 
bill is, we pay it basically. Every other type of medical delivery 
system in this country is using innovative new programs--HMO's, 
preferred provider organizations, POS's, other types of innovative ways 
of delivering health care that has brought together a great deal of 
competition.
  No. 1, we have to expand the options for Medicare beneficiaries, give 
them more choices, let the choices be more competitive and all aimed at 
providing quality service while at the same time doing it at a better 
price. So, we have to encourage the growth of managed care and have 
more alternatives for individuals than we have had in the past. Those 
are some of the things that we need to be looking at.

  There are a whole bunch of options we put forth in our proposal, the 
Chafee-Breaux bill. We are going to be revisiting that in the next 
Congress. Today, obviously, is not the day or time to outline a 
comprehensive list on what we need to do with Medicare. Suffice it to 
say that both sides together, Democrats and Republicans, have to 
realize that this has to be one of our priorities in the early part of 
the next Congress.
  I would, frankly, like to see the new President-elect--I hope that it 
is the President of my party, the incumbent President, but should the 
former Majority Leader Dole be elected, so be it--but whoever it is, I 
suggest very strongly that immediately following the election they 
immediately consider appointing a commission to take a look at this and 
have a recommendation ready for us when we get back in January. Why 
waste November, December, and January just talking about this issue? I 
suggest whoever wins on November 5, one of the first things they do is 
call for a bipartisan commission to begin work to present them with a 
recommendation when the new Congress begins so we can start from day 
one trying to forge a compromise that gets the job done in a number of 
entitlement areas, particularly in Medicare. We certainly have our work 
cut out for us.
  With that, 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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you, very much.

                          ____________________