[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 92 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6489-S6490]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        MEDICARE PROVISIONS VIOLATE BIPARTISAN BUDGET AGREEMENT

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a Member of the Senate Budget 
Committee, I have spent the last four months in ongoing negotiations 
working towards the enactment of a real, balanced budget plan. I was 
part of the bipartisan negotiations that resulted in the historic 
balanced budget agreement. Getting to this agreement was not an easy 
task, but I realized that the need to get to balance was critical. I 
negotiated in good faith and believed that the final product was an 
equitable, fiscally sound agreement that did balance the budget without 
jeopardizing vital programs.
  The agreement ensured the continued solvency of Medicare. It 
guaranteed that Medicare would remain an affordable health insurance 
program that provided quality health care for millions of senior 
citizens. The agreement also allowed for an expansion of health 
insurance for 10 million children that have no health insurance. It 
called for the largest investment in education in over 30 years and it 
would provide real tax relief for working families. While I still had 
some reservations about the agreement, I supported the package because 
I knew that in any good faith negotiation one can never expect to win 
on all points. It was not a perfect agreement and as I have said in the 
past, it is not the one that I would have produced. But, it was a 
bipartisan, fiscally sound balanced budget agreement.
  The agreement called for $204 billion in net deficit reduction. This 
would be in addition to the over $200 billion in deficit reduction 
already accomplished as a result of the 1993 deficit reduction package. 
The agreement built on this successful deficit reduction package which 
resulted in 4 straight years of declining deficits. In 1993, the annual 
Federal deficit was close to $300 billion, for 1997 the Congressional 
Budget Office estimates that the deficit could fall to $70 billion. I 
was proud to be part of this deficit reduction effort and believed that 
we could get our fiscal house in order.
  Following passage of S. Con. Res. 27, the FY98 Budget Resolution, 
which incorporated the balanced budget agreement, I was hopeful that a 
fair, equitable and fiscally sound balanced budget would be in place by 
the end of the year. I negotiated in good faith; I agreed to adhere to 
the agreement; and I was of the belief that my colleagues would do the 
same.
  Unfortunately, the reconciliation spending measure adopted by the 
Senate, violates this bipartisan agreement. But, more importantly, it 
violates the commitment I made to my constituents when I was elected to 
the U.S. Senate.
  One of the commitments I made to the people of Washington State was 
to work to expand affordable health care for all Americans. I am proud 
of the steps we have taken to improve access to health care for more 
Americans. Unfortunately, included in this reconciliation legislation 
is a provision that will deny affordable, quality health insurance for 
those Americans age 65 to 67. Increasing the Medicare eligibility age 
from 65 to 67 will deny affordable, quality health insurance for 
millions of Americans. I cannot in all good conscience support 
legislation that increases the number of uninsured Americans. We should 
be looking to reduce the numbers of Americans with no health security, 
not adding to it.

  I did not come to this decision without a great deal of thought. I 
have listened to the debate on both sides of these issues. I cannot 
help but think about the impact that these provisions will have on 
senior citizens who have worked hard all of their lives and are now 
facing escalating health care costs and limited retirement income. I 
only need to think about my own parents to

[[Page S6490]]

truly understand what these changes mean to our senior citizens. When 
my father was diagnosed with M.S. my parents saw their insurance 
deductibles increase to $2,000 a piece overnight. Their premiums also 
increased dramatically every year. There was nothing that they could do 
as there were no other available health insurance plans that would 
cover my father. They were struggling to simply make their insurance 
payments and other basic life necessities. My father was desperate to 
turn 65 because he was not sure how much longer he could afford 
insurance or how much longer they would cover him. An additional two 
more years of skyrocketing premiums and deductibles would have 
financially devastated my parents. My father may have lost his 
insurance if he had to wait two additional years. He would have lost 
access to effective therapies for treating MS and slowing the progress 
of this crippling illness. As it was I know that there were times when 
my parents feared going to the doctors because of the impact on their 
deductible and premiums. Is this what we want for our parents?
  My parents knew that once they reached 65 they would have some 
guarantee of affordable, quality health insurance. Prior to this, there 
simply was no guarantee. They knew that prior to 65 that were one 
illness away from financial disaster. If we act to increase the 
eligibility age to 67 there will be those seniors who face an even 
worse fate and will be at the mercy of insurance companies. They will 
see their retirement security jeopardized and their access to 
preventive health care gone. We should be encouraging greater access to 
preventive health care as it controls long term health care costs. 
Increasing the age to 67 will only make people sicker and poorer. I 
cannot support this type of outcome.
  There is another troubling provision within the reconciliation 
package which, I might add was only introduced yesterday and was not 
part of the balanced budget agreement. With less than 24 hours to 
consider the implications, the Senate is ready to means test Part B 
premiums. Medicare premiums could climb to over $2,000 for senior 
citizens earning more than $50,000. The Social Security Administration 
would now have to know the exact income of every beneficiary for any 
given month.
  The administrative burdens alone warrant further Congressional 
review. Additionally, adding to the cost of the administration of 
Social Security represents a direct attack on the Social Security Trust 
Fund. The means testing as proposed in the reconciliation package that 
the Senate adopted is unworkable.
  There are simply too many questions regarding these provisions. We 
need more time and debate before we act to radically alter Medicare. 
Medicare remains one of the most successful anti-poverty programs ever 
adopted by Congress. The popularity of this program speaks to the 
success of the program and the success of efforts to ensure health care 
security for our senior citizens. Enacting an increase in the 
eligibility age and means testing Part B premiums will do little to 
address the long term financial solvency issues. What it will do is 
undermine our commitment to senior citizens and jeopardize the success 
of the Medicare program.

  We all know that real Medicare reforms are necessary. When the so-
called baby boom generation begins to retire there will be a 
significant increase in Medicare enrollees. I am ready to face the 
challenge of enacting real comprehensive Medicare reforms. However, I 
am concerned that these two provisions including in the reconciliation 
package are being offered as some kind of panacea to real reform and 
will do little to address long term solvency concerns. Increasing the 
age for Medicare eligibility and the means testing proposal will do 
little to control Medicare costs, they will, however, devastate 
millions of senior citizens. This reconciliation bill is not the 
appropriate venue for significant Medicare changes. Reforming any 
program that serves over 33 million Americans requires a more cautious 
and thorough process.
  I came to the debate hoping that at the very least we would remove 
these two provisions from the legislation. I supported amendment that 
would have conformed this reconciliation bill to the equitable 
provisions included in the balanced budget agreement. It now appears 
that this is unlikely and these two provisions will remain in the bill. 
I could not support any legislation that would jeopardize affordable, 
quality health care for millions of senior citizens.
  It is truly unfortunate that we were not successful in eliminating 
these provisions as there are many aspects of this legislation that do 
adhere to the balanced budget agreement and could have positive fiscal, 
economic and social ramifications. But, I had to send the message that 
I could not support any legislation that jeopardizes Medicare.
  It is difficult for me to vote no on this entire reconciliation 
package. This legislation will fix the devastating impact of welfare 
reform for disabled, low-income, legal immigrants. It provides an 
additional $16 billion for children's health care initiatives. It 
allows for an expansion of prevention benefits for Medicare 
beneficiaries. I am also pleased that the Managers accepted my 
amendment to clarify that States can waive victims of domestic violence 
from the punitive welfare reform requirements. I am grateful to the 
Chairman of the Budget Committee for accepting this important amendment 
and am disappointed that I cannot support the overall package.
  I know that there is a very good chance that these problems could be 
addressed in Conference as they are not currently included in the 
reconciliation bill passed in the House. I will make every effort to 
ensure that these provisions do not survive Conference. I believe that 
if we can get back to the bipartisan agreement and good faith 
negotiations, we can still send to the President a balanced budget 
agreement that he can sign. If we have learned nothing else over the 
last two years, I sincerely hope that my Colleagues have learned that 
legislative accomplishments can only happen through honest, bipartisan 
efforts.
  I reluctantly voted no on this reconciliation bill. I want my 
Colleagues to know that this bill is unacceptable and violates the 
bipartisan balanced budget agreement. If we can work in Conference to 
improve the bill and correct the unnecessary Medicare provisions I 
believe we would have a good balanced budget plan. I urge my Colleagues 
to put aside their philosophical differences and work to enact the 
historic balanced budget agreement.

                          ____________________