Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask how much time the Senator from Rhode Island would need. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from North Dakota is ready, we just heard from the Senator from Nevada; he put his amendment in. Further action will occur at the appropriate time. I would like now to ask our colleague from North Dakota to present an amendment he has been waiting for. Amendment No. 2174

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may, Mr. President, we are expecting the unanimous consent agreement that was propounded before that includes Senator Conrad followed by Senator Coverdell, and we intend to follow that order, but understanding that after Senator Reid presents his, at Senator Allard's convenience when we have a break, we will include him as part of the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may, in my discussion with Senator Reid of Nevada, he believed about 15 to 20 minutes would be his maximum requirement, and I spoke to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard. He also talked about the possibility of a matching 20 minutes. So in the unanimous consent agreement, why don't we do that, recognizing that one Senator may not be available to do his immediately, and as such, would the Senator from Colorado be willing to do his when there is a break in the schedule?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened with interest and do not want to enlarge the debate at this time. Obviously, the hour is late, but I listened with a degree of interest and care to the comments of the Senator from Idaho. And we have this debate sometimes that centers around whether the glass is half empty or half full. And we are looking at the same matrix, but I see it differently. I do not see a nation out of control. I do not see an economy that is in great jeopardy. I do not despair over what is taking place in our economic structure. Yes, we are paying more taxes in total, but that is because people's incomes have gone up and thus they are paying a larger share of the tax burden than they used to pay. But when we look at a time when the unemployment rate compares to all-time lows, when we see inflation so well controlled, when we see the investment climate in our country so appetizing, no one knows when this is going to change, but the fact of the matter is, lots of people, lots of hard-working, what we will call modest-income people, have made good returns on their investments. And, Lord willing, they will be protected. But why is all that taking place? Why has the stock market galloped up like it has? It is not simply because there is some kind of a speculation fever out there. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the United States is the most attractive investment country in the world. People feel secure. They know if they invest in America that they have a better chance of keeping their money safe and getting a return than any other place because of the structure of our financial being. We cannot ignore these things. I share the Senator's view. I would like to see us paying off the debt. I am one of those who said, yes, I want to shore up Social Security. And how are we going to do it? We are going to do it by paying down the debt. The President has forecast over $1 trillion worth of surpluses over the next 10 years. That is a pretty encouraging prediction. So, I hope we will continue this debate on the morrow, because I think there are other people here who would also want to comment. Mr. President, I do not think we ought to ever lock ourselves into straitjackets to say that you cannot do this unless you do that. We are sent here to exercise judgment. And when I hear the speeches of some of my colleagues, I say, well, we sound like a bunch of recalcitrant children who have to be locked in a corner or put in our seats, or we are so bad--why can't we control ourselves? I do not see it that way. I must tell you, I have great respect for those that I disagree deeply with here. They are sent here to represent a constituency who thinks that these people, the Senators in this Chamber, are going to carry a point of view that they share. And if not, there is a test that comes every 6 years. And you can see what happens. You have either passed the test or you have flunked it; it is very decisive. But with all of that, I just do not see this, if I might call it, self-flagellation, this beating of ourselves. Look at the facts. The economy is really good. I know that I feel better about my children's future now than I did a few years ago. I think we have proven one thing. And some would say, well, we have not, Alan Greenspan has. He is part of our crowd, whether we think we are in his league or not. The fact of the matter is, we have inflation under control--something that was hard to believe could be done, and has not caused deflation, has not caused a crisis. Things are going along very well. So I hope, Mr. President, we will have a chance to chat about this a little bit tomorrow, and I hope we will be able to encourage our colleagues to vote against the Craig amendment, to say that we do not have to put on the handcuffs and apologize for our behavior. I do not think I do everything right, but I know one thing: I work at what I do. And so does everybody else here. I do not think there is anybody here who shirks their responsibility, who does not take it seriously. And I do not think I have to be put in a corner like a child and told, well, you are not going to be allowed to do this unless you do that; you are not going to be allowed to spend money. How do we know when the crisis is coming? We have done the things we said we ought to do. We have a balanced budget. I think we are all proud of that. We can argue whether it is CBO balanced. We say, yes it is. We all kind of believe that on a unified budget basis we are going to be seeing a slight surplus in the very short period. So I hope our colleagues will stand up and say no to limiting our ability to use our heads, to use our judgment, to take the risk of our votes and to see if we can do things without limiting our ability to act. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is with an hour allowance.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I appreciate the message that the chairman of the Budget Committee is sending out here, and that is the time is going to be consumed. We always know what happens when it gets to the bewitching hour, which is the end of the week, and people want to go home or take care of other business. I say to my colleagues on my side, as well as the other side, do not be surprised, if you want to delay doing it now, that you are not going to be able to get enough time, in many cases, to really explore the amendment that you want to present. We could wind up in a vote-a-thon. That is going to be allowed. It means 1 minute debate and a vote. I don't think that is a good way to do legislation. I say we are going to be here. Senator Domenici and I have agreed we will stay as long as we can, to use the expression, to do some business, to have people come down and offer their amendments. We invite them, whether it is 10 o'clock or 12 o'clock. We don't want an hour to elapse in between them, frankly, but we are here and we will stay as long as our colleagues want to bring amendments. We hope they will. If I still have the floor, I have a couple of amendments to send to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send three amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these three amendments be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send a modification of the Boxer amendment to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. And we yield back on our side as well.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, Senator Wellstone has three amendments that are at the desk and have been laid aside. I understand that amendments 2186 and 2188 need to be modified. I now ask that those two amendments be modified with the changes that are now at the desk. They have been reviewed by the majority.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is my understanding, therefore, if the unanimous consent is agreed to, that Senator Dodd will have as much as an hour on his amendment based on the unanimous consent that was constructed.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. When is the Senator proposing to set the vote on this amendment?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have no indication from anybody here that they want to offer a second-degree amendment. So that would take care of that. Is the Senator proposing that we yield back all remaining time from the Senator from Arizona as well as our side; all yielding back?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the sense-of- the-Senate amendment offered by Senator Kyl, which calls for the expansion of private contracting between physicians and Medicare beneficiaries. This proposal could leave beneficiaries vulnerable to higher out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services. And it could leave the Medicare Program more vulnerable to fraud and abuse. Mr. President, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 allows physicians to enter into ``private contracts'' with Medicare enrollees and set their own fees for services covered by Medicare. The intent of this provision was to allow the 9 percent of physicians who don't participate in the Medicare Program, to continue to treat their Medicare-eligible patients through private contracts. To protect Medicare from fraud and to ensure that private contracting arrangements are limited to physicians who otherwise would not be available to Medicare beneficiaries, the law is limited to those physicians who agree, in an affidavit, to forgo all reimbursement from Medicare for at least 2 years. The law also requires a physician to disclose to the patient that no Medicare payment will be made for privately contracted services, no balance billing limits will apply, no Medigap coverage will be available, and the services to be performed would be paid for by Medicare if provided by another physician. The proposal advocated by Senator Kyl could jeopardize these important protections by allowing all physicians to charge Medicare beneficiaries more than the levels set by the Congress on a service-by- service or patient-by-patient basis. And that could lead many seniors vulnerable to pressure from providers to pay higher rates. For example, a physician could tell someone with a serious illness that they would have to pay extra to get the services they need. And for a desperately ill person, that may leave them feeling that they have no real choice. So, Mr. President, we need to evaluate the impact of the law we just passed before we make changes that could raise costs for beneficiaries or add to the already critical problems of fraud and abuse. The American College of Physicians has recommended that we not legislate further on the issue of private contracting at this time. They have advised that any further expansion of private contracting could have many unknown effects that should be studied in the broader context of Medicare reform by the bipartisan commission on Medicare. I believe that's good advice, Mr. President, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator can have a couple more minutes as he needs.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Minnesota 4 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield up to 6 minutes to my friend from Minnesota. If more is needed, let me know.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am pleased to yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Before adjourning, I want to apologize to the pages for having kept them past 10 o'clock because it deprives them from going to school tomorrow and I feel very badly about that. Please accept my apologies.