April 26, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5685

bring this bill in its then form to some

final vote. But, in order to do so, we

need the cooperation of Members. We

need them to appear. We need them to

speak to their amendments or speak to

the bill, to let their views be known, to

carry on the debate in the better traditions of the Senate.

So, Mr. President, I summarize by

saying we are open and ready for business and any Member who wishes to do

business will be welcome through the

door.

With that, Mr. President, I suggest

the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll.

Mr. KOHL. 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quorum call be rescinded.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. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning

business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered. The Senator

is recognized.

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DAVID

fPRYOR

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I come to

the floor today for just a few moments

to express my admiration and appreciation and my respect for DAVID PRYOR,

our colleague, who has announced that

he will not be running for reelection

next year.

For those of us in Washington and, of

course, for those people in public life

all over the country, we meet all manner of different human beings, both in

terms of the constituents that we meet

and, of course, the colleagues with

whom we work. While none are bad,

some are different from others and

some are better and some are best. And

in the category of best, I would put

DAVID PRYOR, the best kind of a human

being, the best kind of a friend, the

best kind of a public representative.

The people in Arkansas know very

well what an outstanding person DAVID

PRYOR is and what a great public servant DAVID PRYOR has been. He is beloved by virtually everybody in Arkansas to the extent that when he ran for

reelection last time, he had no opposition, and had he run for reelection in

1996, it is undoubtedly true that he

would have received an enormous majority of the votes cast in that election.

So DAVID PRYOR’s record of accomplishment and achievement, the esteem in which he is held by people in

Arkansas, is well known. Those of us

here who have worked with him in the

Senate are equally well aware of what

it is that DAVID PRYOR has accomplished and what kind of a person he is.

In my judgment, DAVID PRYOR is the

best kind of a public servant, the best

kind of a Senator, for many reasons,

chief among which, in my judgment, is

the fact that he is a person who can

and does work with all of his colleagues, regardless of which side of the

aisle they happen to occupy. I believe

that is an enormous virtue in a public

servant, and that it is invaluable in the

Senate where, in order to get things

done in a constructive fashion, in order

to keep the place working, people have

to have a willingness and an ability to

compromise their differences in order

to get things passed, in order to keep

legislation moving and, more importantly perhaps, in order to assure the

people that we represent all over the

country that this is an institution that

can work.

DAVID PRYOR understands that as

well as anybody I have met in my now

6 years here in the Senate. He practices

that. Although we Democrats, of

course, know how comfortable and how

easy it is to work with him, I know it

is equally true that Republicans recognize in DAVID PRYOR a person who,

more than anything else, wants to get

things done and in no way, ever, is interested in just impeding the work of

the Senate.

So he is an outstanding person. Personally, DAVID PRYOR, when I came

here 6 years ago, befriended me immediately. He went out of his way, recognizing that I was new to the process,

and he went out of his way to see to it

that I got along here and got to know

my colleagues, got to know a little bit

about how the Senate works, and in

every way and at every turn, when I

ran up against an obstacle or had a

problem I did not know how to deal

with, I felt comfortable talking to him.

He was always receptive and always

willing to put aside whatever it was he

was occupied with in order to take care

of my needs and to help ensure that I

became a working Member of this

body.

So DAVID PRYOR has been not only a

great Senator but he has been a wonderful human being. I think that we

can celebrate what he has accomplished in his career here in the Senate

and celebrate it in a way which really

does not, in any way, suggest that his

career is over. He is not running for reelection in 1996. He says he wants to return to the private sector. Whatever he

does, he is going to be good and effective at it. He is a person of public service, and his career in politics may go

on at another time in another place

and in another job. If it does, we will

all be very well served.

So DAVID PRYOR, we love you and we

respect you. We have great regard for

what you have accomplished here

among us, and we wish you well during

these next 18 months when you will

continue to serve with us. We certainly

wish you, Barbara, and your family

continued good health and happiness as

you wend your way along the path of

life.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

INHOFE). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to speak as in

morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

SENATOR DAVID PRYOR

fMr. SIMON. Mr. President, I happened to turn my television set on in

my room and caught Senator KOHL

making his brief remarks about our

colleague, Senator PRYOR. It occurred

to me that I should come over here and

just say a few things also, about DAVID

PRYOR, who has announced that he is

not going to be running for reelection.

I can remember when I was in the

House and I heard DAVID PRYOR speak

to a breakfast meeting. I had known

him just to say hello, but I was very favorably impressed and I have been favorably impressed through the years.

Two things I think of specifically in

connection with our colleague, Senator

PRYOR. One is the Taxpayer Bill of

Rights. The Internal Revenue Service

does excellent work, but whenever you

have human beings, occasionally there

are those who abuse their privileges

and that is true in any organization—

the U.S. Senate, the Internal Revenue

Service. So DAVID PRYOR introduced

his Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which

gives the ordinary taxpayer, who may

be abused, or feels he or she is abused

by the IRS, an option and an ombudsman who can say: Let us take a look at

whether we are doing the right thing.

The second thing I can remember is

DAVE PRYOR standing here on the floor

and going through an amazing list of

consultants being hired by virtually

every agency of Government. It was an

astounding accumulation. I do not remember what the figure was, but it was

absolutely astounding. I remember

then the next appropriations, and the

next budget, we whacked away at that.

It may very well be creeping back up

again, I do not know, but it is one of

those areas that is very easily abused

by Government. We hire consultants

for everything from the Department of

Energy, Department of Defense, foreign

aid—whatever it is, we hire consultants.

I also think of DAVE PRYOR as someone who is genuinely interested in the

well-being of our country. Yes, he is a

partisan as we all are partisans, but

frequently this body gets too partisan.

I hear it in our Democratic caucuses. I

am sure my colleague hears it from Republican caucuses. He has not invited

me to any of his Republican caucuses,

but I am sure he hears the same. And I

think one of the things the public

wants from us is that we say, ‘‘What is
S5686 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE April 26, 1995

good for the country?’’ And we follow

that. DAVE PRYOR really has done that.

He has been just a distinguished

Member of this body in addition to

being a friend of all of us. It has been

a real privilege to serve with him in

the U.S. Senate. He has served Arkansas well, but I think more important

than that, he has served the United

States of America well. I am proud to

have him as a colleague here in the

Senate.

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator from

Illinois yield?

Mr. SIMON. I will be pleased to yield

to my friend from Washington.

Mr. GORTON. I enjoyed the description by the Senator from Illinois of the

Senator from Arkansas. I agree with it.

I may also say I believe the Senator

from Illinois has described himself.

Mr. SIMON. My friend from Washington has been too generous in that remark, but I thank him anyway.

Mr. President, if no one else seeks

the floor—I see my colleague from Colorado does not look as if he is quite

ready. He is still making notes.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that I be permitted

to speak as if in morning business for a

period of not more than 10 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

MEDICARE: THE TICKING TIME

fBOMB

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to

discuss the approaching insolvency of

our Medicare Program.

The Clinton administration has confirmed that Medicare is going bankrupt. We must act now to save it. We

must reform Medicare to protect it, to

preserve it, and to improve it.

Next year, for the first time in its 30-

year history, the program will begin

deficit spending. And on April 3, the

Medicare Board of Trustees announced

that Medicare will go bankrupt by the

year 2002. In 7 years—well before I will

be eligible for benefits—the program

will have exhausted all of its resources

and will cease to exist in its current

form. We must act now.

This is not new information—Congress has been warned repeatedly of the

Medicare time bomb. Mr. President,

the clock is ticking—we must take action this Congress to save this vital

program. I come before you today to

discuss the successes and failures of

this program, and to begin to look for

ways to protect and preserve its longterm health.

What is Medicare? It is a Government

program which gives 32 million older

Americans and 4 million individuals

with disabilities access to the private

health care system. Medicare is actually made up to two entirely different

programs: A hospital insurance program, which is compulsory for seniors,

and a physician insurance program,

which is voluntary, with 96 percent of

all seniors participating in this voluntary insurance program.

Medicare’s hospital insurance program—part A—is funded by a payroll

tax on working citizens, a tax which

entitles them to future benefits.

The physician insurance program,

part B, in contrast, is funded by a combination of general tax revenues and

premiums paid by the beneficiary.

Medicare has been very successful,

successful in providing access to quality care. More than 37 million Americans today are covered by the program.

Today’s elderly live longer, live

healthier lives, and enjoy a better quality of life than ever before. Medicare

participants are extremely satisfied

with the overall care they receive. Yet,

Medicare has become a victim of its

own success. All will be lost if we do

not act to save Medicare.

Over the years, many have found

fault with the program: it does not

cover comprehensive benefits; it does

not protect out-of-pocket costs; it does

not really provide incentives for consumers to maintain cost-conscious behavior; it does not reward providers

with keeping people healthy; and its

costs clearly are growing out of control

faster than the Nation’s economy, faster than the budget as a whole, and faster than twice the rate of inflation.

Medicare spending rose by 11 percent

last year, while private sector health

care spending rose by only 4 percent.

Thus, each of us comes to the Medicare Program with the hope of addressing one or more of these problems. As

a citizen legislator, one who comes to

the Senate directly from the private

sector, I approach this challenge wearing many hats. I come to the table as

a health care provider, a physician who

on a daily basis has served the personal

health care needs of thousands of Medicare patients. I come to the table as

the son of two active parents, both of

whom are 84 years of age. They have

been beneficiaries of Medicare as they

were treated for heart attacks, colon

cancer, pulmonary edema, a fractured

neck, bleeding ulcers, kidney failure, a

broken arm, phlebitis, and a stroke. I

come to the table as a father of three

boys whose generation will be working

to the pay the bills for my generation.

And I come to the table as a legislator

who sees the looming crisis of Medicare

staring us straight in the face.

When Medicare was designed in 1965,

the goal very clearly was to provide

senior citizens with greater access to

our country’s health care system. Medicare at that time was structured to

mirror the private system of the time

which in 1965 was primarily Blue Cross

and Blue Shield fee for service. That

means Congress paid providers based

solely on the cost of the care delivered.

There was no fee schedule of negotiated

rates with providers. There was no real

justification of costs. Furthermore, at

that time Medicare insulated providers

from the Government by allowing them

to work through fiscal intermediaries

and carriers, similar to private insurance.

Now, Medicare is an insurance program that pays for private services.

Great Britain took quite a different approach. I spent almost a year as a physician in England, and I as a physician

worked directly for the English Government receiving a salary from the

English Government as an employee of

the National Health Service. The English have replaced their national insurance program and moved directly into

Government provision of services.

Whereas our country relies on the private sector for control and direction,

England relies on direct Government

intervention. This underlying philosophy is fundamental to our understanding of Medicare. Medicare was established to give seniors access to the very

same health care system available to

all other Americans.

But as the American medicine delivery systems have changed over the last

30 years, and matured and diversified,

Medicare has remained stagnant. Medicare fails to give seniors access to the

full range of plans currently available

to all other Americans. The private

system has evolved and Medicare has

failed to keep up. Changes and improvements are required today before

seniors and the disabled fall even further behind.

Managed care illustrates that point.

Today, 63 percent of working Americans obtain their care through some

type of managed care program. In contrast, only 9 percent of seniors are enrolled in some type of managed care.

Yet, it is important for people to understand managed care is only one of

the options in the private system

today. There are many others. And reasoned Medicare reform would open the

Medicare Program broadly to the many

options that are available to all other

Americans in our private system

today. It would allow seniors the freedom to direct their Medicare money to

the plan of their choice. For some, that

would mean an employer-sponsored

plan. For others, it would mean an indemnity-type plan, and for still others

a looser form of managed care. But the

bottom line is that the Government

should no longer restrict a senior’s

choice of health plans.

New to this body, I find it hard to understand why Congress has failed to

pay attention to the ticking time

bomb—Medicare. By failing to address

the issue head on, we only delay the inevitable and make it more difficult for

our successors. If we choose not to preserve Medicare’s integrity, we resign

ourselves to either substantial benefit

reductions for seniors or repetitive tax