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

May 4, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6163 

doubt that Medicare costs over the last 

10 years have not grown as quickly as 

they have in the private sector. But 

that, in part, is because we are continuing to do what I just said we do not 

want to do any more. We do not want 

to pass Medicare costs on to the private sector. We do not want to say, in 

the name of reform, all we are going to 

do is let the private sector take on 

greater responsibility for health costs. 

We have to solve the problem of skyrocketing costs in the private sector, 

as well as those costs in Government. 

And that is exactly what I said this 

morning and what I hope we can continue to focus on as we consider the 

Medicare debate. 

f 

DAVID PRYOR: A TRUE PUBLIC 

SERVANT 

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I could 

not help but listen to the distinguished 

Senator from Arkansas just a moment 

ago. All of us will greatly regret his absence beginning in the next Congress. 

As we all know, last week, the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Senator PRYOR, announced his plans to retire. 

As the Senate Democratic leader, I 

feel like pleading with him not to go; 

to change his mind. 

What we heard just this afternoon 

was another illustration of the value 

that he is to all of us, the unique individual that he truly is. 

While he has been known around 

town as one of the President’s closest 

friends on Capitol Hill, he is one of my 

most indispensable allies in the Senate 

and one of the closest friends that most 

of us have here in the Senate. 

I have constantly drawn on his experience and wisdom for advice and guidance. And I have constantly found his 

calming influence amidst many a Senate tempest to be essential for my own 

personal well being as well as that of 

the U.S. Senate. 

But while I recognize that he is a 

kind, southern gentleman of the first 

order, I also warn, do not let that calm 

demeanor fool you. In the Senate, 

there is not a more tenacious or aggressive fighter for the causes in which 

he believes than DAVID PRYOR. 

Shortly after his election to the 

House of Representatives, Congressman 

PRYOR went undercover as an orderly 

to investigate conditions in nursing 

homes. When the House refused to conduct hearings on the plight of America’s elderly, he rounded up volunteers 

from local colleges, rented a trailer, 

and conducted his own hearings in an 

abandoned gas station a few blocks 

away from the House Office Building. 

When the Speaker of the House refused 

to establish a Committee on Aging, 

then-Congressman PRYOR turned his 

trailer into the ad hoc House Trailer 

Committee on the Aging and continued 

its investigation. 

The House finally established—to no 

surprise of anyone who watched all of 

this—a Select Committee on Aging. 

When OPM claimed to have cleaned 

up its act and made Government jobs 

accessible to all applicants, Senator 

PRYOR sent his office interns down to 

that agency to apply for jobs. 

He then called them to testify before 

his Subcommittee on Federal Services, 

where they informed the Senate about 

the continuing abuses in that most important Federal job recruiting agency. 

The list does not end. 

He has taken on the IRS and authored and steered to passage the taxpayers’ bill of rights to make our tax 

system fair and equitable to every citizen and every business. 

He has taken on the Beltway Bandits, 

as he has conducted hearings and demanded more than 40 GAO reports on 

Government use of what he calls America’s shadow government—private consultants. 

He has taken on the pharmaceutical 

companies for the high prices they 

charge for prescription drugs. 

He has stopped production of unsafe 

and unworkable chemical weapons, 

even though it meant jobs in his State 

of Arkansas. 

He has conducted a longstanding crusade against what he considers timeconsuming and time-wasting Senate 

procedures like filibusters, dilatory 

floor tactics, quorum calls, and extended rollcall votes. 

But throughout his fights, Senator 

PRYOR hss remained the gentleman 

that he is. His fights have always been 

constructive, not destructive, to the 

national interest, We need more, not 

less, positive-minded, cooperative, 

dedicated Senators like DAVID PRYOR. 

While I am tempted to ask him to 

stay, as his friend, I fully understand 

and support his reason for leaving. 

He has given a lifetime of public 

service. As a teenager, he worked in 

Washington, first as a page for Representative Oren Harris, and then in 

the post office in the House of Representatives. 

He had successful careers as an editor-publisher and as an attorney, but 

he always came back to public service. 

In 1960, he was elected to the first of 

three terms in the Arkansas State Legislature. 

In 1966, he was elected to the first of 

four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. He served two terms as 

Governor of Arkansas. 

Since 1979, he has served in the U.S. 

Senate. His work in this Chamber has 

consumed so much of his time and attention. In addition to his most important work as chairman of the Special 

Committee on Aging, he has been active on the Finance Committee, the 

Committee on Agriculture, the Joint 

Committee on the Organization of Congress, the Governmental Affairs Committee. And, yes, event the Ethics 

Committee. 

In addition to all that, he has also 

served as Democratic Conference secretary. 

Senator PRYOR now wants to enjoy 

life after politics—and there is much to 

say for that kind of life. Senator 

Mitchell told me so just the other day. 

Senator PRYOR’s love for the Senate 

is exceeded only by his love for his 

family and his love for the beautiful 

State of Arkansas—both of which he 

will now be able to enjoy even more. I 

wish Senator PRYOR, Barbara, and his 

family the best in the years ahead and 

can only say that their gain is our loss. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the 

pending business? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

pending business is H.R. 956, and the 

Gorton amendment is the pending 

amendment. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business until 5:30 

p.m., with Senators allowed to speak 

for not to exceed 5 minutes each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, last 

month, the Medicare Board of Trustees 

issued its annual report. Four members 

of this committee are appointees of 

President Clinton—three of them currently serve in his Cabinet. 

The trustees concluded that Medicare 

will begin to go broke next year, and 

will be completely bankrupt by the 

year 2002. 

If this were to occur, no payments, 

by law, can be made by Medicare to 

pay for hospital care or for any other 

services paid for by the trust fund. 

Thirty-three million seniors and four 

million disabled individuals depend on 

the Medicare Program every year. 

It is for them, and for those who will 

follow, that we must commit to preserving, improving, and protecting the 

Medicare Program. 

Tuesday, the Speaker of the House 

and I extended a verbal invitation to 

President Clinton to sit down with us 

and to begin working on a bipartisan 

plan to preserve, improve, and protect 

Medicare. 

Judging from the President’s actions 

in the past weeks, and from remarks he 

delivered earlier yesterday at the 

White House Conference on Aging, it 

appears that the President has once 

again chosen partisanship over leadership. 

Instead of heeding the advice from 

his trustees, the President heeded the 

advice of his political pollsters, using 

yesterday’s speech as an opportunity 

to engage in scare tactics and to mislead America’s seniors. 

Nevertheless, Speaker GINGRICH and I 

are willing to give the President the 

benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he did not 

watch the news Tuesday evening or 

read the paper yesterday morning. Perhaps no one at the White House told 

him of our invitation. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS