Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for Senator Rockefeller and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I assume that the amendment goes into the line of amendments as turned in and will be considered at that point in the order.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, there is an amendment here from Senator Kennedy that failed to get included in the list. I send it to the desk.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to send to the desk a modification to an amendment I earlier sent to the desk on behalf of Senator Rockefeller.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair, yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Mr. Rockefeller and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 510 be in order for its appearance tomorrow.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Senator Chafee shook his head no.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I think that is a good idea.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Rhode Island for bringing this up. He stood against overwhelming odds as he introduced this substitute, because it did go over some ground that we had already covered. But, to Senator Reed's credit, he is determined to make certain that the system is as fair and as effective as it can be. I compliment him for sticking to this. I know the prospects may be grim. But hope springs eternal. And that is the attitude that I think Senator Reed always has. I hope that the best will come as everybody reflects overnight on what is in his amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may ask the Senator a question, this isn't, I take it, your idea of a particularly good way to make reforms in something as complicated as Medicare, and I could not agree with you more. This is fast-track legislation, which means--for those who are not familiar with the terminology--that this is supposed to zip through this place. This was not part of the consensus agreement we labored over for months in order to strike a budget agreement that could pass muster and would be a consensus bill. This now is recommended by the Finance Committee in terms of their reconciliation on expenditures. I have been a loyal trooper in defending the consensus agreement. But this, in my view, is certainly outside the pale. I am not any happier than the Senator is.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support removing the provision on the increase in Medicare eligibility. I would like to see that removed. This provision, as we all know, calls for increasing the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. Throughout our negotiations on the bipartisan budget agreement, there was no serious discussion--none--of increasing the eligibility age for Medicare. And, if there was, even the most casual discussion didn't wind up in the bill. So it wasn't believed in the contentious review that it would be appropriate. Nor has this issue been the subject of hearings or serious debate in the 105th Congress. There is nothing in the budget resolution that calls for dealing with the issue, as I said. Nevertheless, the bill before us would increase the eligibility age for Medicare and would do so without protecting the seniors aged 65 and 66 to make sure that they will have access to affordable health insurance as they age. Typically corporations now have men aged 65 to offer retirement in many cases, and that is the vulnerable age. If there is an illness that befalls someone or they run into economic differences during that period of time, that is a very harmful experience. I think it would be a serious mistake to do that without making certain that the those aged 65 and 66 are protected. Before going further, I want to acknowledge that the Senators who are responsible for this proposal are trying in good faith to confront the long-term problems facing the Medicare Program. They deserve real credit for that. I, too, would like to have a comprehensive review on Medicare. I think we have made a good first step back when we finally had the policy behind the development. That was to add years of solvency to the Medicare Program while we engaged in a comprehensive review. So this is not the time, frankly, nor the place on our agenda to do that. So I disagree with their approach. My concern is that if we simply exclude 65- and 66-year-olds from Medicare, what do these folks do? At that age private health insurance can be prohibitively expensive, if it is available at all. Without Medicare, these people may have nowhere else to turn. Mr. President, I point out that more and more businesses are dropping health insurance coverage for their retirees. The trend has been accelerating in recent years, and it may well continue into the future. I know lots of people who face retirement who want to engage in a business or continue to work productively. But in almost no case can they be assured that they are going to get private health insurance to take them over if they wanted to go beyond Medicare protection. So private insurance doesn't look like it is a real course for those in that 65-66 category. It is a frightening prospect. I have never heard so many conversations from people about their concerns about health insurance. It is a continuing subject. Notice that in job opportunities very often the health insurance discussion is no longer one that is available. Lots of small companies can't afford to provide it, and they don't. So people are worried about the prospect of bankruptcies as a result of a catastrophic illness, about being put out on a limb and not getting the coverage that they need. We know that hospital services in this area are expensive. We also know that there has been a major change in the psychology of our society; that is, people in their sixties no longer expect to be put out to pasture. They can do lots of good things. Take it from an expert here, they can do lots of good things. And they want to know that their health is protected. So it is a scenario that could face millions of Americans if we are not careful. If the Congress decides, Mr. President, that the Medicare eligibility age should be changed, there are ways to protect senior citizens in the process. Some have suggested allowing uncovered seniors to pay a reasonable premium in return for Medicare coverage. Others have suggested subsidizing private insurance or other options. I am not advocating any single program at this point. My focus is that we should not pull the rug out from millions of Americans without ensuring that they have at least a basic safety net. I also believe that a fast-track reconciliation bill is the wrong vehicle to be considering a fundamental change like this. For those who are not familiar with our terminology, ``fast track'' means get it done, try to zip it through the place--not undercover but to try to get it done. The reconciliation bill is one that kind of commands an enforcement mechanism for achieving the objectives that we set out for ourselves--in this case the balanced budget by the year 2002, to try to extend the solvency of Medicare, take care of legal immigrants who are here, to provide insurance coverage for children that are not ensured. Those are the missions that we encompass in this bill. They were negotiated over a long period of time--several months. They were very difficult negotiations--difficult not because we were at each other's throat but because we tried to deal with reason and thought and arrived at a consensus that would take care of most of the needs that we provide for our citizens, including a massive infusion into our education programs to provide young people with opportunities for the future, and again to protect senior citizens who are perhaps impoverished and can't afford increased premiums. Suddenly this is a new factor introduced from the Finance Committee which is an amendment to the basic bill. In addition to the limit on amendments to the reconciliation, it would be very difficult even for Senators to consider fully various options. The proponents of rating the eligibility age in this bill argue that we must act now to give Americans adequate notice about a change that is coming in the future. However, I would note that this bill includes a commission to look at the long-term issues involving the Medicare Program. The commission is required to report within 1 year of this bill's enactment. If the commission determines that a delay in the eligibility age is required, Americans will have plenty of notice about that possibility to be able to respond with their community and with their organizations. They will be able to send in considered opinions. I think we must do that. So I hope that my colleagues will support the effort to remove this provision from the reconciliation bill. It would be wrong to leave older Americans without health care coverage. We certainly shouldn't do so on something that is going to move as rapidly as this is without an opportunity for having adequate public input and a full debate. So, Mr. President, again I salute the effort of those who are offering the change because they think that it is essential for the solvency and for the long-term survival of Medicare. But, on the other hand, if it is that important and that crucial, then we ought to make sure that we allow enough time and allow enough review to make certain that the step we are going to choose is the correct one. Mr. President, I see nothing is going on at this moment. I therefore, note the absence of a quorum, and I ask that it be charged to both sides.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the Senator from Nebraska as much time as he needs.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from New Mexico so much time as he needs to make his remarks.