May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6473 

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. 

f 

THE BUDGET AND MEDICARE 

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 

first of all, I thought I might just respond very briefly to my colleagues 

about the budget and specifically about 

Medicare. 

Mr. President, let me just simply say 

that the most fundamental problem 

about the proposed cuts in Medicare 

and Medicaid, up to about $400 billion 

between now and 2002, is that these 

cuts reflect, I fear, a real lack of 

knowledge about health care policy. 

That is what bothers me more than 

anything else, Mr. President. 

Mr. President, no one should be surprised about the increase in the cost of 

Medicare, which, by the way, is a benefits program. It is not an actuarial program. It is a commitment we made in 

1965; by no means perfect. Catastrophic 

expenses are not covered, prescription 

drug costs are not covered. There are 

many gaps. 

But, Mr. President, the reason that 

this is an expensive program and the 

reason the expense increases is because 

more and more of our population are 

aging and more and more of the aged 

population are now in their eighties. 

Obviously, we are not going to be 

able to do anything about that, and I 

do not think we want to do anything 

about that. 

The second reason is general inflation. 

The third is medical inflation. 

Mr. President, the problem with this 

proposal is you cannot single out one 

part of the health care costs, one segment of the population and cut there 

without very serious consequences. 

Let me spell out a couple. First of 

all, you do ration. This time we really 

do ration. Last year, last Congress, 

there was a hue and cry about rationing when we wanted to have universal 

coverage. You are going to ration by 

age, you are going to ration by income, 

and you are going to ration by disability. 

Mr. President, that is what happens 

when you just pick out one part of the 

health care costs and you target the elderly and you target low income, and I 

want to talk about Medicaid as well. 

Second of all, the reason the business 

community, the larger businesses—and 

I think they are going to get joined by 

other businesses as well—are going to 

be uniformly opposed to this—and we 

are already hearing from the business 

community—is because it is just going 

to get shifted to them. This is the problem of charge shifting, I say to my colleague, of cost shifting. This is the 

shell game to this whole proposition. 

When you pay less than what the providers need, when you do not have adequate reimbursement, which is already 

too low in rural America, those providers have no other choice but to shift 

it to those who can pay. That is private 

health insurance. Then businesses are 

hurt more. Then employees are hurt 

more. That is what is going to happen. 

And more people get dropped. You are 

going to have a huge amount of cost 

shifting. You cannot single out one 

segment of the population. You cannot 

do it. Welcome to health care reform. 

That is what we have to get back to. 

Mr. President, third of all, in rural 

America, in rural Minnesota, many of 

our hospitals and clinics have 75 percent of their patient mix financed by 

Medicare payments. These hospitals 

are already having a difficult time. 

They are going to go under. It is not 

crying wolf; that is what is going to 

happen. That is exactly what is going 

to happen, Mr. President. 

Fourth of all, and there are a lot of 

‘‘alls,’’ but there is another issue I 

want to talk about as well. But fourth 

of all, I smile when I hear some of my 

colleagues make these proposals about 

vouchers; people can go out and purchase their own health insurance and 

people have the freedom to do so. Has 

anybody ever heard of preexisting condition? Do you think that these health 

insurance companies are going to grant 

coverage to people who are old and 

sick? They do not do that. It is called 

preexisting condition. 

By the way, managed care plans, by 

and large, have been most interested in 

people that are healthier. I am telling 

you right now, these cuts—they say 

they are not cuts—are in relation to an 

ever-growing percentage of the population who are aged, many who require 

ever more by way of medical care. I 

will tell you what, if it is my father 

and mother—both of them had Parkinson’s disease—you better believe I want 

to make sure they get the best care. So 

do not tell me you are not going to seriously cut into the quality of care for 

older Americans. You certainly are. 

In addition, you are going to cause a 

lot of havoc in this whole health care 

system. Just ask doctors, hospitals, 

clinics, all sorts of consumer organizations, all sorts of other people whether 

or not that will not be the case. 

So, Mr. President, the irony is we get 

back to health care reform. There were 

some very interesting proposals about 

how to contain costs which we have to 

do if we are willing to have the courage 

to go forward. But this just picks out 

one segment of the population, and, in 

that sense, it is not intended but I 

think it will be very cruel in its effect. 

I do not think it is an intended effect. 

And it will create widespread havoc in 

the health care field. No question 

about it. From where do you think the 

teaching hospitals are going to get 

their funding? 

f 

FARM BILL 

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, to 

shift, I want to talk about this 1995 

farm bill, and I want to talk about 

what has come out of the Budget Committee. 

I thought we were going to have a 

farm bill as opposed to just drastic 

budget cuts. The document that comes 

out of the Senate proposes cuts of $28 

billion over 5 years and $45 billion over 

7 years. A fair percentage of these cuts, 

the majority of these cuts are in nutrition programs—food stamps, Women, 

Infants and Children Program, School 

Lunch Program. 

By the way, my colleagues in the 

Senate have gone on record that we 

will not take any action to create more 

hunger or homelessness among children. We had studies in the mid- and 

late 1960’s about hunger in America, 

TV documentaries. That is when we expanded the Food Stamp Program. 

Guess what? You bet it was a program that worked. I am not going to 

let anybody get away with talking 

about fraud here and fraud there. Yes, 

there are examples of fraud, no question about it, which should be stopped, 

but on the whole, this Food Stamp Program has made a gigantic difference in 

reducing hunger and malnutrition in 

the United States of America. 

Now we want to have drastic cuts in 

the Food Stamp Program, Women, Infants, and Children Program, and, in 

addition, you go after the deficiency 

payments, the target prices, I say to 

the Chair, for farmers. 

The farmers in Minnesota are real 

clear. We took a big hit last time 

around on deficit reduction, and people 

in agriculture in my State are not opposed to deficit reduction, but they 

want to see some standard of fairness. 

What family farmers say in Minnesota 

is, ‘‘If you give us a price in the marketplace, you can eliminate the target 

prices, you can eliminate the deficiency payments.’’

But if we do not have a fair price in 

the marketplace and you have drastic 

cuts in deficiency payments, you will 

erode family farm income, you will 

erode the value of the land and just as 

sure as that happens, we will see family farmers go under. 

This is simply unacceptable. If you 

want to raise the loan rate to a higher 

level, if you want to give us a fair price 

in the marketplace, great, that is what 

people want. But instead what we have 

had is a policy of low prices which, by 

definition—correct me—means target 

price deficiency payments are higher, 

then that is now used as an excuse for 

cutting these programs, when we have 

already taken one hit after another. 

The future for agriculture in this 

country is a fair price in the marketplace. The future for agriculture is let 

us put value to our products. In Minnesota, we lead the Nation with farmer-owned value-added farm co-ops. 

That is a big part of what people want 

to do. But we are not interested in not 

getting the fair price in the marketplace, not having access to capital to 

move forward with our own cooperatives, not being able to keep the value 

of what we produce in our communities 

and, in addition, seeing severe cuts in 

programs that provide needed income 

to family farms. That is what these 

budget cuts do, Mr. President. That is 

what these budget cuts do. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6474 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

Why impose the most pain on those 

for whom it will be most difficult to 

bear? Why ask the very people who 

cannot tighten their belts to tighten 

their belts? Where is the Minnesota 

standard of fairness? 

I do not see a focus on cutting more 

unneeded military and corporate welfare spending. I do not see a focus on 

eliminating lucrative tax breaks for 

special interests. I do not see a focus 

on moving away on the House side, and 

it seems to be that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

have split on this, on dealing with the 

problem of tax cuts for wealthy people. 

What are we talking about? We are 

talking about $370-some billion, the 

vast amount of which flows to people 

on the top. If you have an income of 

$200,000 a year, it is a break of about 

$30,000. If you have a family income of 

under $30,000 a year, it is a break of 

about $100 a year. What are we talking 

about here? Where is the standard of 

fairness? 

Mr. President, over and over and over 

again, through the time of this 104th 

Congress, I have been on the floor. I remember when I first uttered these 

words, I thought to myself, ‘‘Are you 

just giving a speech or is it going to 

happen?’’ I had to believe it was going 

to happen to say it. I said that my fear 

is the deficit reduction is going to be 

based on the path of least political resistance. That is exactly what is going 

on. 

I remember David Stockman’s book 

about the early eighties. He said what 

we should have done was go after the 

weak claims, not the weak claimants. 

We are not going after the weak 

claims, we are not going after the corporate welfare, we are not going after 

the military contracts, we are not 

going after the tax breaks, but we are 

going after the family farmers, we are 

going after the children, we are going 

after senior citizens, we are going after 

education. 

There is no standard of fairness 

whatsoever. It is all based upon who 

are the folks who have the financial 

and the political clout to get their 

voice heard here and who are the vast 

majority of the people who are shut 

out of the process. We are going to 

have one sharp budget debate. When it 

gets to Medicare and Medicaid, I am 

going to insist that my colleagues 

know this policy well and understand 

exactly what the consequences are of 

what they are doing. When it comes to 

the cuts in agriculture—disproportionate cuts—I want to make sure that 

people know that we are talking about 

farmers not out of sight out of mind, 

but the producers in this country, and 

what this is going to do to family farmers. When it comes to education, I want 

people to understand the consequences 

of what it means when we do not invest 

in education and young people. When it 

comes to children and child nutrition 

programs, I want to make this argument: Do not go after the most vulnerable citizens in this country. 

When it comes to alternatives, I want 

to talk about the corporate welfare, I 

want to talk about the tax dodgers, I 

want to talk about the military contract, and I want to talk about how we 

really can contain health care costs. I 

look forward to this debate. I hope all 

of the people in the United States of 

America are engaged in it. 

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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

COVERDELL). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to speak as in 

morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

THE ASSAULT ON MEDICARE: 

MYTH AND REALITY 

Mr. KENNEDY. The Republican 

budget plans in the Senate and House 

of Representatives propose unprecedented cuts in Medicare, some $250 to 

$300 billion over the next 7 years. Cuts 

of this magnitude will break America’s 

contract with the elderly. Millions of 

senior citizens will be forced to go 

without health care they need. Millions 

more will have to choose between food 

on the table, adequate heat in the winter, paying the rent, and medical care. 

These cuts will also be a heavy blow 

to the quality of American medicine. It 

will damage hospitals and other health 

care institutions that depend on Medicare and that provide essential care for 

Americans of all ages, not just senior 

citizens. Progress in medical research 

and training of health professionals depend on the financial stability of these 

institutions. Academic health centers, 

public hospitals, and rural hospitals 

will bear an especially serious burden if 

these deep cuts are enacted. 

In addition, such cuts will inevitably 

impose a hidden tax on workers and 

businesses who will face increased 

costs and higher insurance premiums 

as physicians and hospitals shift even 

more costs to the nonelderly. 

According to recent statistics, Medicare now pays only 64 percent of what 

the private sector pays for comparable 

physician services. For hospital care, 

the figure is 68 percent. The proposed 

Republican cuts will widen this already 

ominous gap even farther. 

Because of the current gaps in Medicare, senior citizens already pay too 

much for the health care they need. Elderly Americans pay an average of onefifth of their income to purchase health 

care, a higher proportion than they 

paid before Medicare was enacted. 

Yet the reason Medicare was enacted 

in the first place, 30 years ago, was to 

deal with the health care crisis affecting the lives of older Americans at that 

time. How can we care any less about 

their needs today? 

Medicare today does not cover prescription drugs. Its coverage of home 

health care and nursing home care is 

extremely limited. We go to any senior 

citizen home in America and ask the 

senior citizens there how many of them 

are paying, say, $50 a month for prescription drugs, half the hands will go 

in the air. If asked how many pay $25 a 

month or more per month for prescription drugs, three-quarters of the hands 

go in the air. 

Looking at what has happened in 

terms of cost of those prescription 

drugs, which are so necessary for the 

senior citizens, we find those costs 

have been going right up through the 

roof. They are absolutely an essential 

part of the needs for our elderly people, 

and they are not included in the Medicare Program, and they are draining 

down scarce resources for retirees and 

for senior citizens. 

Unlike virtually all private insurance 

policies, Medicare does not have a ceiling on out-of-pocket costs. It does not 

cover eye care, it does not cover foot 

care, it does not cover dental care. All 

of those are important needs for our 

senior citizens. 

Yet the Republican budget cuts will 

ask senior citizens to pay $900 more a 

year out of their pockets when the cuts 

are fully implemented. And the Republican tax bill already passed by the 

House of Representatives gives the tax 

cut of $20,000 to wealthy individuals 

making more than $350,000 a year. That 

is not right and the American people 

know it. 

The assault on Medicare is based on 

five myths. Myth No. 1 is that deep 

cuts are needed to save Medicare from 

bankruptcy. The hypocrisy of this 

claim is astonishing. A few weeks ago, 

the House Republicans included a provision in their tax bill to take $90 billion out of the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund over the next 10 years. 

We did not hear a word then about the 

impending bankruptcy of Medicare. 

They took that amount of money out 

of the Medicare trust funds. They did 

not have to unless they were interested 

in increasing the tax reductions for the 

wealthiest individuals, but they took 

that out of the Medicare trust funds. 

Now they are talking about how the 

Medicare fund itself is facing financial 

difficulties, when just 3 weeks ago they 

took $90 billion out of there to use it 

for tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals. 

It is true that an April 3 report of the 

Medicare trustees projects that the 

Medicare hospital insurance trust 

funds will run out of money by the 

year 2002. Few, if any, Republicans will 

be talking about deep Medicare cuts to 

cure that problem if they did not also 

need such cuts to finance their tax cut 

for the wealthy. 

As the Medicare trustees themselves 

noted in their report, modest adjustments can keep Medicare solvent for 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS