May 2, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5993 

Senator GORTON and Senator HOLLINGS

or their designees. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOLE. I further ask that following the disposition of the Dole 

amendment, as amended, if amended, 

Senator THOMPSON be recognized to 

offer an amendment to limit the bill to 

Federal court cases only. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOLE. So I say to my colleagues, 

there will be no votes tonight. But anybody who has a second-degree amendment to the Dole amendment, or anybody who wishes to debate, we will be 

in session as long as that may take. 

I thank my colleagues on both sides 

for agreeing to this request. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi. 

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent if I could proceed 

as in morning business for 5 minutes? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR JOHN C. 

STENNIS 

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it was 

my honor, a unique honor and special 

pleasure to serve in this body as the 

State colleague of John C. Stennis for 

10 years. I deeply appreciated the bond 

of friendship, respect and trust that developed between us as we worked together to represent the interests of the 

State of Mississippi, and its citizens, in 

the U.S. Senate. 

He had already established a reputation for intelligent leadership in this 

body when I arrived here, and I considered it my good fortune to be able to 

learn first hand from him and from his 

example. We were never rivals. We 

talked almost every day. He was always friendly and courteous to me, as 

he was with every other Senator. Although we were members of different 

political parties, that did not interfere 

with or detract from our relationship. 

Our State has had it share of demagogues, as all other States have, and I 

have deplored their excesses and have 

been embarrassed by them. But in Senator Stennis we saw a man as pure in 

heart and deed with less inclination to 

inflame the passions of the voters with 

exaggerated and flamboyant rhetoric 

as any we have ever elected to public 

office, and I admired him for that. He 

preferred to win a debate or an election 

on the basis of the well argued evidence, rather than to prey upon the 

fears or suspicions or prejudices of the 

audience. 

He was the kind of Senator I try to 

be. 

During his more than 41 years of 

service as a U.S. Senator, he was 

steady, conscientious and extraordinarily successful in every assignment 

and undertaking. 

From his earliest days to his last 

days he gave the full measure of energy 

and his ability to the service of this 

body and to his State. He saw that as 

his duty, and he took that as seriously 

as anyone who has ever served here. 

Others have recalled in their speeches the positions of responsibility he 

held and the legislation he authored 

and caused to be adopted. There were 

many of each, and they are persuasive 

testimony to his effectiveness as a Senator. I will not try to recount all of 

them. 

What may not be as easily measured 

is the influence he had in the Senate by 

the force of his character. He was the 

epitome of rectitude, of fairness, of decorum. His selection to be the first 

chairman of the Senate’s Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was 

an illustration of the view that others 

in the body had of him, and the confidence they had in him to do what was 

right and just. 

That is why he was so admired and 

appreciated in Mississippi. He got 

things done that helped our State, and 

its people, but he was more than an effective Senator. He was totally honest 

and trustworthy. 

Mississippi will forever honor the 

memory of John C. Stennis. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

DEWINE). The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent to speak as if 

morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

thank the presiding officer for his patience. 

f 

MEDICARE 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

am here to talk about the Medicare 

Program. In the recent days, I have noticed all kinds of people expressing 

deep concern for Medicare. That is 

comforting, because there is more than 

enough reason to be concerned. 

Let me get right to the point. The 

Republican leaders in Congress, and 

the chairs of both Budget Committees 

in Congress, want to balance the budget in 7 years. If they keep their word 

and leave Social Security and defense 

spending completely alone, that will 

require cuts totaling $1.2 trillion. 

If they throw in the tax cuts for top 

income-earners that will require another whopping $345 billion to finance 

those cuts. Now here’s the key point 

for anyone concerned about Medicare: 

as we have seen in papers distributed 

by the Senate Budget Committee 

itself, this drive for a balanced budget—and presumably some tax cuts—

will require cuts in Medicare to the 

tune of $250 to $300 billion in 7 years. 

Medicaid will also have to help out 

with $160 to $190 billion in cuts. 

The recent talk about Medicare is 

not really saying this. It is all about 

the need to shore up the Medicare trust 

fund, because it could be insolvent in 7 

years. It is all about the idea of restructuring Medicare to save the program. The argument we are hearing is 

that Medicare has to be drained of $300 

billion to save the program. A curious 

argument. 

Somehow, I think we need to make 

sure Americans, especially the 37 million senior citizens and disabled citizens who rely on Medicare, aren’t being 

sold a bill of goods. 

The fact is that the terms set by the 

leadership on the other side of the 

aisle—balance the budget by 2002, leave 

defense alone, and throw in some tax 

cuts—may require a raid on Medicare 

to get the job done. 

That is why I am here. 

My basic reaction to all this talk is 

to urge the Republican leaders to simply show us precisely what you mean. I 

am speaking as someone who cast my 

vote, several times, for a very precise, 

very specific plan to reduce the federal 

deficit by $600 billion. It included savings in Medicare. The 1993 budget and 

deficit reduction plan was based on the 

simple concept of shared responsibility, and spread the burden fairly. 

Along with spending cuts to reduce 

the deficit, it did important things like 

expand the tax credit for working families to make sure work is a better 

choice than welfare in this country. 

But for all of the fire and brimstone 

heard this year about the need to balance the budget and now ‘‘save’’ the 

Medicare Program, we have yet to see 

a budget resolution, a budget plan, a 

single detail on just how everyone 

making the noise intends to achieve 

these impressive goals. 

Of course, the President is reacting 

by saying essentially ‘‘show me.’’ He 

submitted his budget on time. He offered a health care plan that tied Medicare savings to comprehensive health 

care reform. He rejected the idea of a 

constitution amendment on the Republicans’ terms, and so of course, he is 

asking for some specifics. 

I cannot conceive of a budget that 

meets the conditions of the other side 

of the aisle—stay away from Social Security, do not touch defense, no new 

revenue, and tax cuts for corporations 

and the wealthy—without huge cuts in 

Medicare. 

And make no mistake about it, $250 

to $300 billion of cuts in Medicare will 

mean higher deductibles and premiums 

for seniors, lower fees for hospitals and 

doctors, and a lot worse. If there is 

such a budget that can side-step Medicare, we are simply saying ‘‘show us.’’

We have put our cards on the table for 

the past 21⁄2 years when it comes to 

health care, Medicare, and deficit reduction. 

While all of this talk and born-again 

interest in Medicare’s solvency gets 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S5994 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 2, 1995 

sorted out, I am here to lay out proposals that I think are bottom-line 

ways to act in the best interests of 

Medicare. I do this as someone who has 

tried to protect Medicare for a long 

time, and will keep fighting to do exactly that. I do this as the former chair 

of the Medicare Subcommittee on the 

Finance Committee, and now the ranking member—the majority leader is the 

chairman of that subcommittee now. 

I do this as someone who smells a rat 

when the same people who have talked 

for months about stepping up to the 

plate, with specifics on how the budget 

can be balanced by 2002 with tax cuts 

thrown in and defense off the table, but 

now suggest that the $300 million in 

Medicare cuts they are talking about is 

their new plan for saving Medicare. 

Something is not quite right about this 

picture, I suggest. I agree that Medicare has to be put on better financial 

footing. But that effort should not be a 

smokescreen for using it to finance 

other agendas like tax cuts for corporations. 

First, I am introducing legislation to 

create a National Commission on Medicare modeled after the National Commission on Social Security Reform 

that President Reagan chartered in 

1981. 

The charge given to the Social Security Commission was to propose ‘‘realistic, long-term reforms to put Social 

Security back on a sound financial 

footing; and to forge a working bipartisan consensus so that the necessary 

reforms can be passed into law.’’

We need this kind of bipartisan process to shore up Medicare. We need to 

jump off the current rhetorical, budget-driven track to one where we can resolve the real question: how best to 

keep Medicare dependable for seniors 

over the next generations. 

If Medicare is cut by unprecedented 

amounts of money to pay for anything 

but Medicare, the consequences will be 

disastrous for health care providers 

and beneficiaries. Rural hospitals will 

close in droves. Doctors will be forced 

to turn away the elderly. Medicare will 

no longer be reliable insurance for seniors in West Virginia. 

As my second proposal, I will offer an 

amendment to the budget resolution 

when it comes to the Senate floor that 

will put Medicare in a lock-box to protect it from looting. 

This isn’t the blueprint we need to 

get Medicare back on solid ground for 

the long term, but it will buy a few 

more years of solvency and ensure it 

will not be used for anything but the 

promises made to senior citizens. Medicare is not a slush fund to finance tax 

cuts or other Government programs. 

I will tell you why I am concerned 

about Medicare. I am worried its true 

purpose is getting lost. 

It is a promise, a pledge, to the 

American people that they will be able 

to live their lives in dignity and security past their working years. Instead 

of treating Medicare like a checking 

account in this budget process, we need 

to remember it is an investment. 

The Medicare trustees sounded the 

alarm about the short-term insolvency 

of the Medicare Program more than 3 

years ago. 

In fact, the Medicare trustees urged 

action on comprehensive health care 

reform to address the country’s systemic problem of rising health care 

costs that are draining the Medicare 

hospital trust fund and the pockets of 

American families and businesses. 

But comprehensive reform was rejected by the Congress last year. I 

should note that up until very recently, the Medicare Program outperformed the private sector in holding 

down its costs. Over the past 2 years, 

Medicare costs have been slightly higher than the private sector costs. 

But, and this is a big ‘‘but,’’ the private sector is insuring fewer and fewer 

people, while Medicare’s enrollment is 

increasing; and Medicare pays for home 

care services and skilled nursing home 

care, types of services that are not normally covered by private insurance 

policies. 

Mr. President, I have heard lots of 

talk about needing to move the Medicare Program into the 21st century by 

‘‘restructuring’’ it so it looks more like 

insurance in the private sector. 

So far, I just cannot share in the enthusiasm for copying something that is 

leaving out so many hard-working people and families from any kind of 

health care security. In fact, Medicare 

was first established because the private insurance industry had failed so 

miserably to provide affordable insurance to senior citizens. While many of 

my colleagues like to talk about the 

‘‘miracles of the marketplace,’’ I still 

see cherry-picking and redlining, medical underwriting and policy cancellations, job-lock, and families paying 

more and more money for fewer and 

fewer health benefits. 

Just think about sending 37 million 

people with pre-existing medical conditions to the private insurance market 

with vouchers called choice-clerk and 

medi-check. High administrative costs 

in the private sector will eat up the 

value of Medicare benefits right off the 

bat. Will the senior citizens living in 

small towns across West Virginia end 

up paying more of their own money for 

their health care or be forced to join an 

HMO—if one is even available in the 

area? 

To ‘‘save’’ Medicare we need comprehensive proposals to address these 

issues, not just blind cutting of Medicare. Last year, we offered proposals to 

fix these myriad problems. Republicans 

disagreed with our approach, and celebrated the defeat of our proposals. Our 

opponents’ television ads stated again 

and again that there’s ‘‘a better way.’’

Slashing $250 to $300 billion out of 

Medicare is not a better way. 

Mr. President, cutting $250 billion 

out of Medicare over 7 years is not the 

way to guarantee the long-term solvency of the Medicare Hospital Trust 

Fund. It might add a few more years of 

solvency—5 to 8 tops, CBO thinks—to 

the trust fund. We need to rise to the 

challenge met when Medicare was created and Social Security was rescued, 

and chart a long-term prescription for 

Medicare’s health over the next 25 

years of more. 

I make my two suggestions as a way 

to get started. 

Protect Medicare from raids to pay 

for anything, especially tax cuts, but 

what its intended for—the promise of 

health care security for the seniors of 

West Virginia and the country. And 

while we know Medicare is safe, let us 

replicate the approach used to save Social Security and really prepared Medicare for the challenges of the next century. 

I thank the Presiding Officer and 

yield the floor. I suggest the absence of 

a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY AND LEGAL REFORM ACT 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what is 

the pending business? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

pending question is the Gorton amendment No. 620. 

Mr. GORTON. Is the Snowe amendment to the Gorton amendment also 

pending? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a 

Gorton amendment offered on behalf of 

Senator SNOWE. 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this 

amendment is identical to an amendment which was adopted by a rollcall 

vote earlier today to the medical malpractice sections of the bill. We have 

discussed it. Everyone has agreed that 

we do not need another rollcall vote on 

it. I believe all debate is concluded. I 

ask the President to put the question. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there 

is no further debate, the question occurs on agreeing to the amendment No. 

620 to amendment No. 596. 

The amendment (No. 620) was agreed 

to. 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move 

to reconsider the vote by which the 

amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to lay 

that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS