[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10960-S10962]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SENATE BUSINESS

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Arizona in 
requesting the business of the Senate be allowed to go forward. We have 
seen many filibusters all year. That is what has gotten us into this 
situation where we are past October 1 and still working on the budget.
  I think we ought to be doing the business of the Senate. My 
predecessor, Alan Simpson, who had this seat in the Senate, said 
several times, an accusation that isn't answered is an accusation 
accepted. There are a couple of things I have to clear up from this 
morning.
  First, we did all this work on a balanced budget without the balanced 
budget constitutional amendment. Yes, we did. But the debate on the 
balanced budget constitutional amendment is what made the people of 
America rise up and tell every single one of their representatives that 
they wanted the budget of this country balanced. And it was the heat 
the people of this country put on the Congress that led Members to 
balance the budget. That wouldn't have happened without the debate on 
the balanced budget.
  That is the reason we have what is being referred to as a ``surplus'' 
today. It isn't a surplus. It is tax overcharge. We have collected more 
from the people than we had planned to spend. We ought to refer to it 
as that.

[[Page S10961]]

  I could not begin to cover all of the accusations that were 
misaccusations. Another real important one I have to cover is the 
Reaganomics attack. Yes, giving the money back to the people, as Reagan 
suggested, resulted in a 30-percent increase in revenue to this 
country. So why do we have such a big deficit? Because people spent it. 
We cannot spend more than we take in. It is a pretty basic principle of 
economics. Reaganomics increased revenue.
  The other side, who was in control of the Congress at that time, 
outspent what he was able to bring in by increasing business in this 
country. The balanced budget amendment increased the economy of this 
Nation. Everybody agrees balancing the budget has done that. If we get 
back to a position where it isn't balanced, people will lose confidence 
in the economy, and we will be back where we started, with ever-
increasing deficits, particularly if we dramatically increase spending 
each year.
  I notice the Secretary of the Treasury took an unusual approach 
yesterday and got into the debate on Social Security.
  The Social Security issue does come down to: Whom do you trust? Every 
year that I have been here, there has been a promise that there will be 
Social Security reform. I went to a White House conference. I have to 
say it was one of the best planned, best organized, and best done 
conferences I have ever seen. One of the reasons was that Republicans 
and Democrats, House and Senate, were invited to be a part of it. When 
it finished, there was a special part for everybody from the House and 
Senate to participate in--again, Republicans and Democrats. We sat down 
with the President and we agreed there needed to be Social Security 
reform and that reform had to have the fingerprint of everybody on it, 
that it could not be used as a Social Security scare.
  We have saved bill No. 1 for the President's Social Security reform. 
Every year that I have been here, the President in his State of the 
Union speech has said: The most important thing for this country is to 
solve the Social Security problem. We saved bill No. 1 for him. We 
never got a solution.
  The President of the Senate, who is the Vice President of the United 
States, has been a part of these efforts. He says he has delivered on 
all his promises. That is a promise that was made. That is a promise 
that has not been kept. Social Security has not been reformed.
  There has been another effort involved in this, too, and that has 
been a bipartisan commission--again, Republicans and Democrats sitting 
down to talk about how to save Social Security. They came up with a 
plan. They had to have a supermajority to have that plan actually 
presented to us, and the President's nominees to that committee were 
the ones who objected and made it one vote short of being a request 
that could be presented to us. Again, a bipartisan solution. That 
bipartisan solution is what you are hearing Governor Bush talk about. 
It is something that has been presented in a number of plans here in 
the Senate, but it needs the endorsement of both Republicans and 
Democrats, and the elimination of a veto threat at the Presidential 
level, to be able to solve that problem.
  Why do we need to solve it? You have heard how far we extended it and 
how we are getting extra money into the Social Security trust fund. The 
money in the Social Security trust fund is IOUs, T-bills. Now we are 
using the Social Security surplus to pay down the private debt for the 
United States. Do you know what that does? That lets us spend more 
money. When we have private debt out there, we pay the interest on a 
regular basis. When we spend Social Security surplus to pay down the 
national debt, the private part of the national debt, we increase the 
Social Security debt and we just put in IOUs to pay the interest.
  Why is that important? Sometime the debt will come due. You hear a 
lot of different numbers about when the debt comes due: 2013 is the 
magic time when the baby boomers move into the group of recipients of 
Social Security and start jerking out enormous amounts of money from 
Social Security--2013. They say Social Security is secure until 2037. 
That is until the last dime is drawn. It will not work that way. Here 
is why it will not. In 2025, the ones of us who are here--with the 
exception of maybe one or two--will not be here. There will be a 
different generation that will be in the Senate and in the Congress. 
These will be people who have paid into Social Security their whole 
life and will realize they will not get a dime out of it.
  Here is another little problem. When it comes appropriations time, 
all they are going to do is decide how big the check for interest is 
going to be, because the national debt will be so huge at that time 
that we will not build a road, we will not do anything for the 
military, we will not do anything for education--we will pay interest. 
How excited do you think the people of this country are going to be to 
just be paying interest on a debt from the last century and to have no 
benefit coming their way? I suggest there could be a revolution in this 
country, an end to Social Security. Future generations may not feel the 
same need to take care of their parents and other elderly in the 
country because they themselves are not going to get any benefit. It is 
not going to be there to take care of them. So it needs to be solved 
now.
  We are also talking about prescription drugs. This is a very 
complicated issue. There are at least six plans out there, any one of 
which could provide prescription drug coverage for seniors. It is 
something in which we are all interested. It is something that needs to 
be done. We need to be sure that every person in this country can get 
the prescription drugs they need, and we need to be sure every person 
in this country doesn't have to make a choice between food or their 
prescription drugs. There have been two plans proposed. They are quite 
different.
  One of the things I like to use is this chart. I think it lends a 
little validity to the decisions between the two principal plans. One 
is provided by Governor Bush, one is provided by Vice President Gore. 
Those are the two main ones. I have to tell you, the biggest difference 
between the two is that Governor Bush's plan provides for choice, your 
choice. Vice President Gore's plan calls for a national plan. The 
decisions will be made in Washington. You will not have the 
flexibility.
  Since we are talking about how some of Mr. Gore's drug proposals 
work, I suggest they lack a little sincerity and are going to make life 
much harder for working Americans. Here are some thoughts on the 
Medicare prescription drug plan. This is the biggest secret out there. 
Mr. Gore's plan would cover 2.6 million fewer low-income Americans than 
the plan offered by Governor Bush and introduced in the Senate by 
Republicans. That is because Mr. Gore's plan offers low-income 
subsidies only up to 150 percent of poverty, while Mr. Bush's plan 
would help seniors up to 175 percent of poverty.
  Mr. Gore's plan would not even become effective until 2002. On top of 
that, Mr. Gore's plan would also displace the coverage that 70 percent 
of the current Medicare recipients already have. For those seniors 
whose employer offered a retirement benefit, there is now no incentive 
for the company to continue that coverage, leaving the senior with no 
option but the HCFA-run program. For all the stock Mr. Gore puts into 
the agenda, and the advice of the AMA, he apparently has not been 
concerned by their assertion that the HCFA--that is, this national 
organization that will run his prescription drug plan--is the IRS of 
the new millennium. I, for one, do not see the sincerity in putting 
more people on the Titanic. As my friend from Texas often says about 
putting people on programs under the care of HCFA, it would be a 
disaster.
  If Mr. Gore had sincere concerns about the health and welfare of 
seniors, he would focus on real solutions that stabilize the Medicare 
program, offer seniors comprehensive health care, and enable seniors to 
select coverage, including prescriptions, that meets their needs and 
budgets. That is a commitment Governor Bush has already made. Governor 
Bush would provide immediate drug coverage for those seniors who right 
now cannot afford it. He doesn't cross his fingers and take his chances 
with HCFA. Instead, he builds on the existing drug assistance programs 
in the States.

  Here are a few statistics about the immediate impact of the proposal. 
Half of women beneficiaries who are currently without coverage would 
gain immediate coverage. Almost three-

[[Page S10962]]

fourths of the minority seniors currently without coverage would gain 
immediate coverage. And the most frail of our seniors, those over 80 
years old, would improve their access under the Bush plan.
  Another important part of the Bush proposal is that States will not 
be restricted from offering low-income subsidies above 175 percent of 
poverty. Under the Gore plan, there is no option for States to pool 
funds and ease the expense of drug coverage for even more seniors.
  Why is this chart important? This chart was done by the Washington 
Post. People who understand newspapers in this country understand what 
the Washington Post does will not be favorable to Governor Bush. They 
have a tendency to be favorable to the other side. So when they do a 
chart, a person ought to pay a little bit of attention to it. This is 
from the article that came with the chart:

       Bush details Medicare plan, September 5: Texas Governor 
     George Bush today proposed spending $198 billion to enhance 
     Medicare over the next 10 years, including covering the full 
     cost of prescription drugs for seniors with low incomes.
       Bush's plan was modeled on a bipartisan proposal by Senator 
     John Breaux, Democrat from Louisiana, and Senator Bill Frist, 
     Republican from Tennessee.

  This is the commission I was talking about.

       Bush's plan proposes ``fully subsidizing people with 
     incomes less than 135 percent of the poverty level and 
     creating a sliding scale for people with slightly more money. 
     But Gore would stop the sliding scale at 150 percent of the 
     poverty level, while Bush would extend it to 175 percent.

  As I mentioned, a lot of States like that flexibility. A newspaper 
that normally would not give good reviews, gives a good review. One 
problem is the cost over the next 10 years would be $198 billion. The 
chart they did comparing the two shows $158 billion. They were charging 
him with $40 billion more in costs than what their chart actually 
shows.
  I hope people will pay some attention to the comparisons. I ask 
unanimous consent that the chart be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 6, 2000]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Bush                                 Gore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                PREMIUMS
 
25 percent of health plans' monthly charge  $25 per month starting in
                                             2002, increasing to $44 by
                                             2008.
 
                     COPAYMENT FOR EACH PRESCRIPTION
 
Not spelled out. Would be determined by     Government would pay 50
 individual plan.                            percent up to maximum of
                                             $2,000 when the program
                                             starts, increasing to
                                             $5,000 by 2008.
 
                   COVERAGE FOR CATASTROPHIC EXPENSES
 
Government pays all costs above $6,000 per  Government pays all costs
 year.                                       above $4,000 per year.
 
                               DEDUCTIBLE
 
Not spelled out. Would be determined by     None.
 individual health plan.
 
                       HELP FOR LOW-INCOME ELDERLY
 
Pays premiums and all other costs for       Same, but partial subsidies
 individuals with incomes less than 135      available for people with
 percent of the poverty line--that is,       incomes up to 150 percent
 $11,300 or couples with incomes less than   of the poverty level.
 $15,200. Partial subsidies for people
 with incomes up to 175 percent of the
 poverty level.
 
                        WHEN BENEFITS WOULD START
 
Help for low-income people and              2002.
 catastrophic coverage would be
 administered by states, starting next
 year. Premium subsidies for other people
 and broader Medicare reforms to make the
 program rely more heavily on private HMOs
 would start in 2004.
 
                                  COST
 
$158 billion by 2010......................  $253 billion by 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the comparison shows pretty conclusively 
that you get more benefits under the $158 billion plan than you do 
under the $253 billion plan. The $158 billion plan goes into effect 
right away. The other one does not go into effect until 2002, and 
people have to pay, under the Democrat plan, $600 whether they get any 
benefits or not. It is my understanding the $600 has been subtracted 
from the $253 billion to make that cost a little bit lower. So it is a 
another tax for a proposal that provides for Federal control as opposed 
to your control.
  HCFA versus your decisions: Talk to your doctors about HCFA and how 
it participates and interacts with them. Talk to them about the crisis 
that HCFA has already caused in this Nation in medical care and ask 
yourself: Do I want to give them the added burden of a prescription 
drug plan and only give myself one option? That is what we are looking 
at here.
  I hope you will do some comparisons and see the difference and 
concentrate on this bipartisan solution to providing prescription 
drugs. The one thing about the Governor from Texas with which I have 
really been impressed has been his ability and effort to work with both 
sides in the Texas Legislature. I used to be in the Wyoming 
Legislature. I know how important it is for people to work together. It 
is a little different atmosphere than we have in Washington.
  How did Governor Bush do that when he moved in and had a Democrat 
legislature? He sat down with them one on one, face to face, and talked 
to them about his priorities and their priorities, and they worked 
together. What excites me is following the history of Presidents, they 
tend to repeat what they have done successfully before, and I am really 
excited about that because I see a Governor coming to Washington and 
sitting down with both sides, one on one, face to face--a long process; 
there are 535 of us, but it is doable. That is what is needed in 
Washington: more effort across the aisle, effort like the Medicare 
Commission that has provided a solution for prescription drugs that can 
be done. I thank the Chair and yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining under morning 
business on the Democratic side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I want to use those 6 minutes to sum up.

                          ____________________