S6160 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 4, 1995 

Then in 1989, something happened. In 

1989, the rate of increase for public expenditures went to its highest level—

11.9 percent; private levels going up at 

10.3 percent. Then, in 1990, public expenditures went up 13.2 percent; for the 

second year in a row, public expenditures went up faster than private, a 

trend that has continued to this day 

unabated. 

In 1991, public expenditures are still 

up in the double digits—12.6 percent, 

but market forces are beginning to assert themselves in the private marketplace, and the private expenditures 

only increased 5.6 percent. It did not 

stay down that low the next year. They 

came up to 6.9; but public expenditures 

stayed in double digits at 10.8 percent. 

Now they have been getting better. 

In 1993, public expenditures 8.5, but private is 7.2. In 1994, public expenditures 

come down to 7.8; but private drops to 

5.3 percent. 

For the minority leader to say that 

the reason we cannot do something 

about the expanding growth of Medicare is because Medicare expenditures 

are going up at the same rate as private expenditures, is to ignore the 

facts of the case. 

Private expenditures are coming 

down in terms of the percentage 

growth at a faster rate than public expenditures are coming down. Indeed, 

Madam President, if we were to take 

the minority leader’s statement at face 

value, where he says: 

Medicare Program costs are increasing because all health care insurance costs are increasing on a per capita basis. Medicare and 

Medicare costs are increasing at the same 

rate as privately insured costs. 

If that statement were true, that 

would mean that Medicare and Medicaid costs would be increasing at 5.3 

percent per year, which figure, Madam 

President, is within the band the Budget Committee is considering for increases for Medicare and Medicaid. 

I have sat in on the budget briefing 

and I have heard the budgeteers say, 

‘‘If only we could get the rate of increase down to 5 percent, we could 

solve all of our problems.’’ The rate of 

increase is down to 5 percent in private 

expenditures. 

The minority leader thinks the two 

are the same. Perhaps he has them confused and thinks that the private people have not done a good enough job 

and the private expenditures are up in 

this kind of level for public expenditures. In fact, they are not. They have, 

ever since 1989, come down at a faster 

rate than the public expenditures come 

down and they are leading the way. 

This is the point we need to keep in 

mind, then, Madam President, with respect to Medicare and the reforms that 

are necessary. We cannot demagog this 

issue. We must stick with the facts. 

Our goal is to make the system that 

takes care of our elderly as stable, as 

secure, and as certain for the future as 

the system that takes care of the rest 

of the population. 

If we can do it as responsible public 

servants at the same rate of increase 

that exists in the rest of the population, we can solve all of our budgetary problems and the disastrous circumstance indicated in this table will 

go away. 

Madam President, I have nothing but 

respect for our distinguished minority 

leader. I consider him a friend and one 

of the more reasonable and certainly 

most thoughtful Members of this body. 

I feel that the information that he 

shared with the Senate last night is inaccurate, and it becomes Members in 

this debate to make sure that the 

record is set straight as quickly as possible, because the stakes in this debate 

are so high. 

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. 

EXHIBIT NO. 1. 

CBO estimates for total medical and health 

care spending in the public and private sector from 1985 until 1994. The figures include 

spending for administrative costs, construction, and research and development as well 

as personal health care costs associated with 

doctors and hospitals. The figures shown represent a percentage increase over the previous year’s spending level. 

MEDICAL EXPENDITURES 

Year Public 

(percent) 

Private 

(percent) 

1985 .............................................................................. 8.8 10.3 

1986 .............................................................................. 8.9 6.1 

1987 .............................................................................. 8.9 8.5 

1988 .............................................................................. 9.0 12.6 

1989 .............................................................................. 11.9 10.3 

1990 .............................................................................. 13.2 10.6 

1991 .............................................................................. 12.6 5.6 

1992 .............................................................................. 10.8 6.9 

1993 .............................................................................. 8.5 7.2 

1994 .............................................................................. 7.8 5.3 

Source: CRS. 

Mr. GORTON. Madam 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SANTORUM.) Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

The Senator from Utah is recognized. 

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair. 

(The remarks of Mr. HATCH and Mr. 

PRYOR, pertaining to the introduction 

of S. 758 are located in today’s RECORD

under ‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills 

and Joint Resolutions.’’) 

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I see no 

other Senator seeking recognition at 

this time. Therefore, I yield the floor. 

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. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

REGARDING A PRIVATE VISIT BY 

PRESIDENT LEE TENG-HUI, OF 

THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA ON 

TAIWAN, TO THE UNITED 

STATES 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed 

to the immediate consideration of 

House Concurrent Resolution 53, expressing the sense of Congress regarding a private visit by the President of 

the Republic of China on Taiwan to the 

United States. 

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am 

sorry I have to do this, but in behalf of 

another Senator who could not be here 

at this time, I do object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. 

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Chair. 

f 

THE SENATE CHAMBER DESKS—A 

BRIEF HISTORY 

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, recently 

I announced that I was not going to be 

seeking another term in the Senate. It 

has been a wonderful opportunity these 

last 161⁄2 years to serve in this great 

body, to be serving with all of my great 

colleagues and friends from all the 50 

States, and all the wonderful staff people that make this place run. I just 

want to thank all of them so much for 

their many kindnesses shown to me. 

Mr. President, I was cleaning out my 

desk a while ago and just looking 

through something I have had in my 

desk for some time that was prepared 

by some of the individuals, I think, in 

the Historian’s office. That is not the 

proper name for those who prepared 

this. But I thought while there were interested parties involved, I might read 

a few pages of some of the history of 

the desks in this Chamber. This is a 

brief history. 

When British troops burned the U.S. Capitol in 1814 during the War of 1812, they severely damaged the Senate Chamber and destroyed the original furnishings. The rebuilt 

Chamber was completed in 1819 and the Senate ordered 48 new desks at a cost of $34 each 

from Thomas Constantine. A New York cabinetmaker, he also constructed desks for the 

House of Representatives. Many of these 

early desks remain in use in the Senate 

Chamber today. As new states have entered 

the Union over the years, additional desks of 

identical design have been built and placed 

in use. 

Throughout most of the 19th century a senator’s only office was his desk on the Senate 

floor, 

We did not have, I might say, the 

Senate office buildings. This was our 

office, the desk that was on the Senate 

floor. 

but gradually separate rooms were assigned. 

The earliest offices were Committee rooms 

occupied by their chairmen; additional space 

later became available under the Olmsted 

Terraces on the West Front of the Capitol. 

Finally, with the completion of the first Senate office building [the Russell Building] in 

1909, all senators were able to occupy suitable offices on Capitol Hill. 

Over the years, modifications have been 

made to the Chamber desks to provide more 

room for books and papers. Beginning in the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 4, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6161 

1830s, three- to four-inch high mahogany 

writing boxes were added to each desk. The 

writing boxes were not installed all at one 

time, but periodically over the next 40 years, 

usually at the request of a desk’s occupant. 

Senate vouchers record payments to carpenter R. B. Griffin for altering nine mahogany desks in 1860, shortly after the Senate 

moved to its present Chamber. 

Not every senator preferred the modification, but today only one desk—‘‘the Webster—lacks a writing box. Senator Daniel 

Webster reputedly refused to have his desk 

added to on the grounds that if his predecessor had managed without the extra space, 

so could he. No succeeding occupant of Webster’s desk has seen fit to abandon that opinion. In order to bring the height of the Webster desk into visual line with others in the 

Chamber, a raised base has been added. Although he was born in New Hampshire, Webster represented Massachusetts in the Senate, and the desk has continued to be associated with Webster’s birth state. New Hampshire Senators Styles Bridges and Norris 

Cotton, for example, occupied the desk for 

long periods. In 1974, just before Cotton retired from the Senate, he secured the adoption of Senate Resolution 467 (93rd Cong., 2nd 

sess.), specifying that the Webster desk 

would henceforth always be assigned to the 

senior senator from New Hampshire. 

Other early Senate desks bear design characteristics that allow their differentiation. 

The oldest desks incorporate wooden inlays 

of circular and rectangular banding at the 

sides, crotch veneer mahogany across the 

fronts, and narrow reeding on the feet. These 

features were incorporated in desks newlymade throughout the third quarter of the 

last century and may today be found in more 

than seventy of the present number. 

The difference in shape and dimension 

among the desks is due to the original semicircular arrangement in the Old Senate 

Chamber. 

Not this Senate Chamber, but the Old 

Senate Chamber. 

A desk’s shape conformed to its position in 

the room: if on the aisle it was narrow and 

angled, if near the center it tended to be 

wider and more square. If the oldest desks 

could be rearranged to the original configuration, it is believed they would form a perfect semicircle. 

During the mid-19th century, mahogany 

shelves were added near the bases of the 

desks. At the turn of the 20th century, the 

feet were enclosed with a metal grille and 

connected to a plenum chamber below the 

floor which provided ventilation. 

That, Mr. President, was the air-conditioning system. We have a much better air-conditioning system now than 

they had then. 

Inkwells and sanders atop the desks have 

also undergone change. Original inkwells 

were composed of clear cut glass, covered 

with square, flat tops that moved horizontally. In 1933, the remaining original inkwells were replaced by containers having 

hinged covers, because the earlier design was 

no longer manufactured. 

Over the years the desks have been periodically rearranged, as new states sent senators 

and as party representation increased and diminished. When additional desks were required, these were generally made by private 

cabinetmakers, although the four newest 

desks—those constructed for Alaska (1959) 

and Hawaii (1960)—were built in the Senate’s 

own cabinet shop. 

Seven distinct numbering systems have 

been employed over the years to track the 

expanding group of desks and their locations. 

These numbers—both Roman and Arabic—

are still visible below and inside the desks in 

various places. The current system, instituted in 1957, consists of Roman numerals 

burned into the right-hand corner of the 

principal crosspiece beneath the desks. The 

desks are not arranged on the Senate floor in 

numerical order. The easiest method of tracing the heritage of each desk is to read the 

names carved inside desk drawers. 

Now, in earlier years, the Members of 

the Senate carved their names in the 

desk drawers. I hate to say that in 

modern times I have looked in my desk 

drawer and some of the occupants of 

this desk even wrote their name, it appears, with a ball point pen. That is 

not quite as classy as carving. 

It appears that such inscriptions are a 

20th-century tradition, for the earliest recorded names date back only to the first decade of this century. Possibly some 19th-century senators inscribed their names in the 

desks, but these names have been lost when 

drawers were refinished. Not all names in 

drawers were personally inscribed by the 

senators. Many reveal an identical hand, 

suggesting either that older drawer bottoms 

were replaced and the names recopied, or 

that staff members, rather than senators, 

took responsibility for chronicling certain 

holders. In recent decades, senators have adhered more closely to a tradition of personally inscribing desks. 

One difficulty in verifying the desks’ 19thcentury assignees is the fact that for many 

years Senate doorkeepers closely guarded 

such privileged information. Isaac Bassett, 

Senate page and doorkeeper from 1831 

through 1895, feared that souvenir hunters 

might damage the historic furniture if it was 

widely known which pieces were used by the 

famous Senators Clay, Calhoun, or Senator 

Webster. Bassett the page and the doorkeeper had reasonable cause for alarm. In 

April 1861, when the Sixth Massachusetts 

Regiment was bivouacked temporarily in the 

Senate Chamber, literally living in the Senate Chamber, Bassett entered the room just 

in time to hear the sound of splitting wood 

on the Democratic side. Rushing to investigate, he found a Union soldier bayonetting 

the desk recently vacated by Jefferson 

Davis, then president of the Confederacy. 

‘‘Stop! Stop! What are you doing?,’’ Bassett 

shouted. ‘‘That is not Jeff Davis’ desk—it belongs to the government of the United 

States. You were sent here to protect government property, not to destroy it.’’ Today, 

a small block of wood inlay on the left side 

of the desk marks the spot where the bayonet once struck the desk of Jefferson Davis. 

Traditions associated with Senate desks 

continue to evolve. A recent example is the 

so-called ‘Candy Desk’’. Each member of the 

Senate knows which desk is the candy desk. 

Senator George Murphy (R-CA) originated 

the practice of keeping a supply of candy in 

his desk for the enjoyment of fellow senators. This desk was subsequently passed on 

to other members for use, but the tradition 

of keeping candy in the desk that occupies 

that particular place in the back row of the 

Chamber continues today. 

The custom of dividing the arrangement of 

Senate desks by party is almost as old as the 

parties themselves. Democrats traditionally 

sit on the presiding officer’s right; Republicans on his left. But the division has not always been definitive as it is today. 

In the Old Senate Chamber, an equal number of desks was placed on each side of the 

aisle, without regard to party size. When one 

party elected more than half the senators, 

some majority party members had to find 

space on the minority side. When the Senate 

moved to the modern Chamber in 1859, the 

practice of dividing the desks equally continued for several years. But during the Civil 

War many Southern Democrats withdrew 

from the Senate and Republicans took their 

places on the Democratic side, even though 

empty desks were available on ‘‘their own’’

side. 

The new Chamber was large enough to permit a somewhat flexible seating arrangement and in 1877 the practice began of moving desks back and forth across the center 

aisle to permit all majority members to sit 

together on the appropriate side of the aisle. 

From time to time since then, one party has 

elected such an overwhelming majority that 

it has become necessary to again have majority members sit on the minority side. For 

instance, during the 60th Congress (1907–1909) 

ten Republicans sat on the Democratic side, 

while during the 75th Congress (1937–1939) 

thirteen Democrats sat on the Republican 

side. Such seating became known as the 

‘‘Cherokee Strip,’’ meaning that the overflow of majority party senators were ‘‘off 

their reservation’’ [the Cherokee Strip in 

Oklahoma was land belonging neither to the 

Indian Territory nor to the United States]. 

By then it had become the practice for senior 

senators to take front row, center aisle 

seats; junior majority party members who 

filled the ‘‘Cherokee Strip’’ were assigned either rear row or end seats on the minority 

side of the chamber. 

Senators independent of either party have 

traditionally chosen on which side of the 

aisle they preferred to sit. Once, during the 

1950s, when Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon 

had left the Republican party but not yet 

joined the Democrats, he placed his chair 

temporarily in the middle of the center aisle 

in order to demonstrate his independence. 

The seating of the majority and minority 

leaders at the front row desks on either side 

of the center aisle is a relatively recent Senate tradition, dating back only to 1927 for 

the Democrats and 1937 for the Republicans. 

In the 19th century, party leadership was not 

yet institutionalized. Certain senators were 

recognized as leaders for reasons of personal 

popularity and political skill, not elected to 

an official post by their parties. For example, Henry Clay always occupied a rear seat 

near the Chamber entrance. From that position he was able to signal party members as 

they came in before a vote, while vigorously 

denying the role of party floor leader. 

Not until the 1890s did party caucus chairmen emerge as floor leaders and for the most 

part such leaders retain regular seats. Front 

row desks went to senior senators in the 

party. For many years, the front seat on the 

Republican side was held by Senator Robert 

La Follotte, Sr., an insurgent who was frequently at odds with his party’s majority. 

Two earlier Democratic leaders, John T. 

Morgan, in 1902, and Oscar W. Underwood, in 

1921, took front row desks, each retaining 

that position after his service as leader had 

end. Not until Underwood left the Senate did 

Democratic minority leader Joseph Robinson move to the front row desk, which he 

continued to hold as majority leader. Following Robinson’s death, the desk went to 

his successor majority leader, Alben Barkley. The desk has been used by Democratic 

leaders ever since. On the Republican side, 

the front row desk was held by senior senators until 1937, when minority leader 

Charles McNary moved there, setting a 

precedent that continues today. 

Mr. President, the actual office that 

prepared this report, and it was done in 

February 1995, was the Office of Senate 

Curator. I want to thank the Senate 

Curator for preparing this report. 

Also, in the back of this report, it 

gives a history of desk No. 39. This is 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6162 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 4, 1995 

desk No. 39, Mr. President, and it lists 

all of the Senators who have occupied 

this particular desk. 

I just want to name a few of these. 

Some of these names may stand out. 

John Bankhead from Alabama occupied 

this particular desk. John Bankhead 

lived over on 19th Street, right off of 

Dupont Circle. John Bankhead was the 

father of Tallulah Bankhead. Tallulah 

Bankhead was one of the grand actresses during that period of time, and 

they lived on 19th Street, where I used 

to live. 

Now, also, Patrick McCarran of Nevada occupied this particular desk, No. 

39. He was the author, I assume, of the 

McCarran-Ferguson Act, which many 

people will recognize. 

Theodore Francis Green, of Rhode Island, occupied desk No. 39. Theodore 

Francis Green may have been—I do not 

know, that record may have been broken—but at one time he was the oldest 

Member to ever serve in the Senate. 

That may have been surpassed. I need 

to check and correct it. But he was the 

chairman of the Foreign Relations 

Committee immediately preceding the 

chairmanship of Senator J. William 

Fulbright of the State of Arkansas. 

Another very illustrious individual 

who has occupied desk 39 is Estes 

Kefauver, from Tennessee, known for 

his coonskin cap and all his grand campaigning as he ran for President and as 

he ran for Vice President. He really 

was a major force in the 1950’s in the 

Democratic Party and in American politics. 

Another great Senator who has occupied desk No. 39 is Henry M. ‘‘Scoop’’

Jackson, of course from Washington 

State, who passed away just a few 

years ago. He truly was one of the giants of the Senate. He occupied desk 

39. 

Frank J. Lausche, from the State of 

Ohio, occupied this desk, desk No. 39. 

For some of you who may not know, 

Frank J. Lausche, to the best of my 

recollection, served more terms as 

Governor than any other Governor 

elected in the history of America. I 

think he was Governor of his State 

for—it seems like well over a decade 

and perhaps even close to 2 decades, in 

the State of Ohio. 

Mr. President, some of this may not 

seem too important to a lot of people, 

but there may be some students around 

who someday would want to know 

more about the Senate Chamber and 

about the desks in the Chamber. 

As Senator ROCKEFELLER and Senator COATS and myself take our constituents through the Capitol and 

sometimes sit with them in the galleries, sometimes people ask us about 

the aisle, where do the Republicans sit 

and where do the Democrats sit? And 

so we thought it might be a good time 

to put a little statement in the RECORD

giving a little, brief history about this 

Chamber and some of the desks that 

make up this wonderful U.S. Senate 

Chamber. 

Mr. President, I see no other Senator 

seeking recognition. 

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. DASCHLE. 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 

MEDICARE INSOLVENCY 

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was 

not in the Chamber an hour ago when 

the distinguished Senator from Utah, 

my colleague, Senator BENNETT, commented on remarks that I made earlier 

this morning. He is a person for whom 

I have immense respect and who I believe is a great student of many of the 

issues we address on the floor. But he 

and I have a very fundamental difference of opinion with regard to Medicare, and I wish to respond briefly to 

comments that he made today on that 

issue. I invite his reaction if he is within the sound of my voice. 

He said in his remarks the Medicare 

trustees’ report predicting insolvency 

only became available in April 1995; 

that it was not available 2 years ago 

when the President’s deficit reduction 

package was debated. 

The fact is that the Medicare trustees’ report is available every year for 

all Members of Congress to see, and 

every year the report has been predicting insolvency of the Medicare 

trust fund, sometime between 1999 and 

the year 2003. So there should be no 

surprise with regard to the predictions 

of this year’s trustees’ report. I think 

the question is, how we will generate 

Medicare savings over the course of the 

next year, and how will we use those 

savings. 

There are some who have advocated 

providing a significant tax cut for the 

wealthy. I think it is fair to say that 

when you cut Medicare to the extent 

that some have proposed it be cut, and 

then you propose a similar decrease in 

taxes for the very wealthiest among us, 

one would have to conclude that the 

cuts in Medicare will be used to pay for 

the tax cut for the wealthy. That was 

the main point I was making. 

Regardless of whether people are 

willing to make that association, as 

valid as I believe it is, I think it is very 

clear everyone recognizes that, indeed, 

the Medicare trust fund is in serious 

trouble. In fact, the President’s 1993 

deficit reduction package addressed 

this issue through proposals designed 

to delay insolvency for several more 

years. Before the President’s deficit reduction package was enacted, the 

trustees’ report indicated the trust 

fund would be insolvent by 1999. As a 

result of the enactment of the 1993 reconciliation package, which all Democrats supported and every Republican 

opposed, we have been able to extend 

the viability of the trust fund for 3 

more years, from the year 1999 to the 

year 2002. So we have made progress. 

What many of us are saying now is, if 

we are going to continue to make 

progress, then clearly we have to go beyond what the reconciliation package 

did with respect to strengthening Medicare. 

What we said last year is that we 

have to pass meaningful health care reform if we are to reduce further the 

rate of Medicare growth, without hurting beneficiaries and shifting costs 

onto families and businesses. 

That is what we attempted to do last 

year. The Senator from Utah indicated 

that the President last year argued we 

needed $118 billion in additional Medicare cuts. Well, the President proposed 

these reductions in the rate of growth 

of Medicare in the context of a health 

reform proposal that assured costs 

would not be shifted onto the private 

sector. Clearly we get cost shifting to 

the private sector when we cut Medicare without addressing private sector 

health care cost problems. That is why 

so many of us argued for so long—and, 

unfortunately, with so little success—

last year that if we are ever going to 

solve Medicare’s problems, we have to 

address our entire health care system’s 

problems. Unfortunately, Republicans 

opposed that effort last year. 

So, Mr. President, my point in addressing this issue is to clarify again 

what I believe to be the real issue. The 

real issue is that we have to make 

meaningful reforms to Medicare without adversely affecting the beneficiaries and without passing whatever 

savings we generate on to the wealthiest among us in the form of another 

tax cut. Real reform is not cutting benefits to the elderly or simply shifting 

more costs onto them. Real reform 

must ensure more efficient functioning 

and administration of the program. 

The last issue that I wish to raise 

with regard to Medicare has to do with 

the chart the distinguished Senator 

from Utah used. My chart is not nearly 

as fancy because we didn’t have time to 

make such an elegant chart, but I 

think it illustrates my point. 

The Senator from Utah indicated 

that Medicare costs were going up faster than costs in the private sector. 

Well, this is only true if you look at 

overall costs. But if you look at a more 

meaningful statistic, per capita health 

care costs, as this chart indicates—on a 

per enrollee basis, from 1976 to 1984, 

Medicare costs rose only slightly faster 

than private sector costs, 14.2 percent, 

versus 14 percent for the private sector. 

But look what has happened from the 

years 1984 to 1993. In that timeframe, 

1984 to 1993, about 10 years, the actual 

increase in private sector per enrollee 

costs was 9.8 percent. The increase in 

Medicare per enrollee costs was 7.7 percent. 

These are numbers given to us from 

HCFA, and I think they make the point 

I was trying to make again this morning. On a per enrollee basis, there is no 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS