Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, again, I just say that there are two sides to the question. We started some new spending programs. We have a program called Kid Care, and the agreement was for it to be $16 billion. It has grown already to $24 billion. Guess what? That additional $8 billion is only for 5 years. We do not even pretend it goes the next 5 years. So what about if that program explodes? My point being, the motion of the Senator from North Dakota is if we do not meet deficit targets we have automatic tax increases, or we will tell people they can have capital gains for 5 years but not beyond, or tell people they can have an IRA this year, but not in the future? I think we should restrain spending, not increase taxes. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion. I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. NICKLES. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion. This motion basically says if we do not meet the targets we will have automatic tax increases. You did not hear it the other way around--you did not hear if we do meet the targets, we will have automatic decreases. The question is, are we spending too much, or are we taxing too little? The Senator from North Dakota obviously thinks if there is a deficit we need more taxes. We need to reach in and take more away from taxpayers. I disagree with that. That is the President's position. As the Senator from New Mexico said, he had automatic tax increases in the outyears. We did not agree with that in the leadership package with the President. We said no, the tax cuts will be permanent. They will be real, and they are not stacked toward higher income. Despite what some of my colleagues said, 82 percent of tax cuts are directed towards families with children and for education. That is family friendly. So I will just urge my colleagues, if we are going to have an automatic deficit reduction, make sure we meet the targets. Let's work on the spending side. Let's have something automatically that will reduce Government spending. I really do believe the problem is not that we are undertaxed. I really believe that the problem is we are overspent. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of Senator Kerrey. We put in language in this bill to make sure in this new program--we created a new program for health care for kids, for teenagers. What we are doing in this amendment is saying this health care program should not include abortion or money for elective abortion. We basically said no public funds would be used for abortion --only if the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. That is consistent with the Medicaid Program. That is consistent with Federal health care policies that we have for Federal employees right now, and we certainly should not create a new program that says, ``Oh, you can have abortion on demand, paid for by taxpayers.'' We will spend billions of dollars. We should not be saying those billions are eligible for teenagers for elective abortion. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Kerrey amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, of all the freedoms we enjoy in this country, the ability to own, care for, and develop private property is perhaps the most crucial to our free enterprise economy. In fact, our economy would cease to function without the incentives provided by private property. So sacred and important are these rights, that our forefathers chose to specifically protect them in the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says in part, ``nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' Unfortunately, some Federal environmental, safety, and health laws are encouraging Government violation of private property rights, and it is a problem which is increasing in severity and frequency. We would all like to believe the Constitution will protect our property rights if they are threatened, but today that is simply not true. The only way for a person to protect their private property rights is in the courts, and far too few people have the time or money to take such action. Thus many citizens lose their fifth amendment rights simply because no procedures have been established to prevent Government takings. Many people in the Federal bureaucracy believe that public protection of health, safety, and the environment is not compatible with protection of private property rights. I disagree. In fact, the terrible environmental conditions exposed in Eastern Europe when the cold war ended lead me to believe that property ownership enhances environmental protection. As the residents of East Berlin and Prague know all too well, private owners are more effective caretakers of the environment than communist governments. Yet the question remains, how do we prevent overzealous bureaucrats from using their authority in ways which threaten property rights? Today I rise to join my colleague Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama in introducing legislation which will strengthen every citizen's fifth amendment rights. Our bill, the Private Property Owners Bill of Rights, targets two of the worst property rights offenders, the Endangered Species Act and the Wetlands Permitting Program established by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Our bill requires Federal agents who enter private property to gather information under either the Endangered Species Act or the Wetlands Permitting Program to first obtain the written consent of the landowner. While it is difficult to believe that such a basic right should need to be spelled out in law, overzealous bureaucrats and environmental radicals too often mistake private resources as their own. Property owners are also guaranteed the right of access to that information, the right to dispute its accuracy, and the right of an administrative appeal from decisions made under those laws. Most importantly, the Private Property Owners Bill of Rights guarantees compensation for a landowner whose property is devalued by $10,000, or 20 percent or more, of the fair market value resulting from a Federal action under the Endangered Species Act or Wetlands Permitting Program. An administrative process is established to give property owners a simple and inexpensive way to seek resolution of their takings claims. If we are to truly live up to the requirements of our Constitution, we must make this commitment. I believe this provision will work both to protect landowners from uncompensated takings and to discourage Government actions which would cause such takings. The time has come for farmers, ranchers, and other landowners to take a stand against violations of their private property rights by the Federal bureaucracy. The Private Property Owners Bill of Rights will help landowners take that stand.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, of all the freedoms we enjoy in this country, the ability to own, care for, and develop private property is perhaps the most crucial to our free enterprise economy. In fact, our economy would cease to function without the incentives provided by private property. So sacred and important are these rights, that our forefathers chose to specifically protect them in the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says in part, ``nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' Unfortunately, some Federal environmental, safety, and health laws are encouraging Government violation of private property rights, and it is a problem which is increasing in severity and frequency. We would all like to believe the Constitution will protect our property rights if they are threatened, but today that is simply not true. The only way for a person to protect their private property rights is in the courts, and far too few people have the time or money to take such action. Thus many citizens lose their fifth amendment rights simply because no procedures have been established to prevent Government takings. Many people in the Federal bureaucracy believe that public protection of health, safety, and the environment is not compatible with protection of private property rights. I disagree. In fact, the terrible environmental conditions exposed in Eastern Europe when the cold war ended lead me to believe that property ownership enhances environmental protection. As the residents of East Berlin and Prague know all too well, private owners are more effective caretakers of the environment than communist governments. Yet the question remains, how do we prevent overzealous bureaucrats from using their authority in ways which threaten property rights? Today I rise to join my colleague Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama in introducing legislation which will strengthen every citizen's fifth amendment rights. Our bill, the Private Property Owners Bill of Rights, targets two of the worst property rights offenders, the Endangered Species Act and the Wetlands Permitting Program established by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Our bill requires Federal agents who enter private property to gather information under either the Endangered Species Act or the Wetlands Permitting Program to first obtain the written consent of the landowner. While it is difficult to believe that such a basic right should need to be spelled out in law, overzealous bureaucrats and environmental radicals too often mistake private resources as their own. Property owners are also guaranteed the right of access to that information, the right to dispute its accuracy, and the right of an administrative appeal from decisions made under those laws. Most importantly, the Private Property Owners Bill of Rights guarantees compensation for a landowner whose property is devalued by $10,000, or 20 percent or more, of the fair market value resulting from a Federal action under the Endangered Species Act or Wetlands Permitting Program. An administrative process is established to give property owners a simple and inexpensive way to seek resolution of their takings claims. If we are to truly live up to the requirements of our Constitution, we must make this commitment. I believe this provision will work both to protect landowners from uncompensated takings and to discourage Government actions which would cause such takings. The time has come for farmers, ranchers, and other landowners to take a stand against violations of their private property rights by the Federal bureaucracy. The Private Property Owners Bill of Rights will help landowners take that stand.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate the community contribution of the American independent retail grocers and their wholesalers. In past years, through the celebration of National Grocers Week, the House and Senate have recognized the important role these businesses play in our economy. The week of June 22-28, 1997, commemorates the eleventh year that National Grocers Week has been observed by the industry to encourage and recognize grocers' leadership in private sector initiatives. Across the nation, community grocers, through environmental initiatives, political involvement, and charitable support, demonstrate and build on the cornerstone of this great country--the entrepreneurial spirit. In this annual celebration, National Grocers Association (N.G.A) and the nation honor outstanding independent retail and wholesale grocers, state associations and food industry manufacturers for their community leadership with N.G.A.'s ``Grocers Care'' initiatives. ``GROCERS CARE'' AWARD HONOREES Representatives from companies, organizations and associations around the United States will be honored. The honorees include: Alabama: Peter V. Gregerson, Gregerson's Foods, Inc., Gadsden; John M. Wilson, Super Foods Supermarkets, Luverne; Dennis T. Stewart, Piggly Wiggly Alabama, Bessemer; California: Judy Lynn, Tawa Supermarkets, Buena Park Colorado: Harold J. Kelloff, Kelloff's Food Market, Alamosa; Florida: Leland F. Williams, Felton's Meat & Produce, Plant City; Roy Deffler, Associated Grocers of Florida, Miami; Iowa: George Tracy, Sales Force of Des Moines, Des Moines; Kenneth C. Stroud, Food's, Inc., Des Moines; Scott Havens, Plaza Holiday Foods, Norwalk; William D. Long, Waremart, Inc., Boise; Virgil Wahlman, Buy Right Food Center, Inc., Milford; Indiana: Larry D Contos, Pay Less Super Markets, Inc., Anderson; Kansas: Doug Highland, Sixth Street Foods, Hays; Bill Lancaster and Douglas Carolan Associated Wholesale Grocers, Kansas City; Kentucky: James Hughes, Techau's, Inc., Cynthiana; Frank Hinton, D & T Foods, Murray; William R. Gore, G & J Market, Inc., Paducah; Peggy Lawson, Laurel Grocery Company, Inc., London; Louisiana: Vincent A. Cannata, Cannata's Super Market, Inc., Morgan City; Joseph H. Campbell, Associated Grocers, Inc. Baton Rouge; Michigan: Kimberly Brubaker and Mark S. Feldpausch, Felpausch Food Centers, Hastings; Ruthann Shull, J & C Family Foods, Carleton; Robert D. DeYoung, Fulton Heights Foods, Grand Rapids; Richard Glidden, Harding's Market, Kalamazoo; Mary Dechow and James B. Meyer, Spartan Stores, Inc., Grand Rapids; Minnesota: Christopher Coborn and Daniel G. Coborn, Coborn's, Inc., St. Cloud; Gordon B. Anderson, Gordy's, Inc., Worthington; Tim Mattheison, Do-Mats Foods, Benson; William E. Farmer, Fairway Foods, Inc.; Alfred N. Flaten, Nash Finch Company, Minneapolis; Jeffrey Noddle, SUPERVALU INC., Minneapolis; Missouri: Douglas Gerard, Country Mart, Inc., Branson; Nebraska: Patrick Raybould, B & R Stores, Inc., Lincoln; Fran Juro, No Frills Supermarkets, Omaha; John F. Hanson, Sixth Street Food Stores, North Platte; Douglas D. Cunningham, John Cunningham, D & D Foodliner, Inc. #9, Wausa; James R. Clarke, Jim's Foodmart, Aurora; New Hampshire: Richard Delay, Delay's, Inc., Greenfield; New Jersey: Mike Reilly, ShopRite of Hunterton County, Flemington; David Zallie, Zallie Enterprises, Clementon; Mark K. Laurenti, Shop Rite of Bensalem, Inc., Bensalem; Paul R. Buckley, Jr., Murphy's Market, Inc., Medford; Dean Janeway, Catherine Frank-White, and Jean Pillet, Wakefern; New Mexico: Martin G. Romine, California Superama, Gallup; North Dakota: Wallace Joersz, J.K. Foods, Inc., Mandan; Stephen B. Barlow, Miracle Mart, Inc., Mandan; Kay Zander-Woock and Terrance Rockstad, Dan's Super Market, Inc., Bismarck; Ohio: Reuben Shaffer, Kroger Company, Cincinnati; Ronald C. Graff, Columbiana Foods, Inc., Boardman; Walter A. Churchill, Churchill's Super Markets, Inc, Sylvania; David G. Litteral, Festival Foods, New Boston; Earl Hughes, Fresh Encounters, Inc., Findlay; Oklahoma: Gary Nichols and Holly Nichols, Nichols SuperThrift, Checotah; George Waken and William Waken, The Boys Market, Enid; James R. Brown, Doc's Food Stores, Inc., Bixby; Thomas D. Goodner, Goodner's Supermarket, Duncan; Larry Anderson, Larry's Foods, Inc., Mustang; R. Scott Petty, Petty's Fine Foods, Tulsa; Oregon: Craig T. Danielson, Danielson Food Stores, Oregon City; Ross Dwinell, United Grocers, Inc., Milwaukie; Pennsylvania: Dale Giovengo, Giant Eagle, Pittsburgh; Robert McDonough, Redner's Markets, Inc., Reading; Angelo Spagnolo, Tri County Giant Eagle, Belle Vernon; Christy Spoa, Save-A-Lot, Ellwood City; Dr. Arlene Klein Wier, Vience Spring Valley, Inc., Philadelphia, PA; South Dakota: Ken Fiedler, Ken's Supermarkets, Inc., Aberdeen; Tennessee: Tommy Litton, Big John's Household Foods, Oneida; H. Dean Dickey, Pic Pac Foods, Columbia; Texas: Jose Fermin Rodriguez, Thrift T-Mart, San Antonio; R.A. Brookshire, Brookshire Brothers, Inc., Lufkin; Stanton L. Irvin, Tri- State Association Grocers, Inc., El Paso; Utah: Kenneth W. Macey, Macey's, Inc. Sandy; Richard A. Parkinson, Associated Food Stores, Salt Lake City,; Virginia: Steve Rosa, Camellia Food Stores, Inc., Norfolk; Steven C. Smith, K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., Abingdon; Douglas A. Tschorn; Jessee Lewis, Mid-Mountain Foods, Abington; Vermont: The Wayside Country Store, Arlington; Wisconsin: Thomas Metcalfe, Metcalfe, Inc., Manona; Steve Erickson, Erickson's Diversified Corp. Hudson; James F. Cwiklo, Quality Foods IGA, Wisconsin Rapids; Tom Turicik, Sentry Foods, Inc., Plymouth; James Heden, More 4 Superstore, River Falls; George Miller, North Country IGA, Ashland; Chuck Potter, Potter's Piggly Wiggly, St. Francis; Ronald Lusic, Fleming Companies, Inc., Waukesha; Robert D. Ranus, Roundy's, Inc. Milwaukee; Gail Omernick, The Copps Corporation, Stevens Point; Washington: H.L. ``Buzz'' Ravenscraft, Associated Grocers, Inc.; Washington, DC: Eric Weis, Giant Food Inc.; West Virginia: David G. Milne, Morgan's Foodland, Kingwood. The following state associations are instrumental in coordinating information relative to the community service activities of their members: Arizona Food Marketing Alliance, Rocky Mountain Food Dealers, Iowa Grocery Industry Association, Illinois Food Retailers, Kentucky Grocers Association, Mid-Atlantic Food Dealers, Minnesota Grocers Association, Nebraska Retail Grocers Association, New Hampshire Grocers Association, North Carolina Food Dealers, North Dakota Grocers Association, Ohio Grocers Association, Oklahoma Grocers Association, Pennsylvania Food Merchants, Tennessee Grocers Association, Vermont Grocers Association, Wisconsin Grocers Association. Manufacturers: Borden Foods Corporation; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company; Electronic Warranty Group, Inc.; General Mills, Inc.; Kellogg USA Inc.; NOVUS Services; Procter & Gamble Company; Ralston Purina Company; RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against Senator Kennedy's amendment which would eliminate--some people call it income testing, means testing, but I would rephrase it. It would eliminate subsidies for upper income individuals on part B premiums. Right now the Federal policy is the taxpayers pay $3 for every $1 for all persons on Medicare part B. It does not make any difference if the person has $1 million of income. We are asking taxpayers with incomes of $20,000 to be paying general taxes to subsidize their premium. I do not think that is good policy. I might mention the Finance Committee, when we corrected this, we did it with bipartisan support. We have all known this issue. Some people say, well, let us substitute it. Let us do it in the commission. We know this should be done. We know this is good policy. I might also mention this was not done so we would have more money to spend someplace else. This was not done in order that we could have more tax cuts. The Finance Committee took 100 percent of the savings, of this amount of reducing subsidies for higher income individuals, 100 percent of that money and put it into part A solvency. So all the savings that come from the increased premiums on more affluent people by reducing subsidies, all the savings that come from that will go toward extending solvency in part A. And as I mentioned in an earlier speech, part A, the hospital insurance trust fund, has serious problems. It is going to have a shortfall in the year 2005, without these changes, of about $100 billion per year, and it grows from there. So we need to do more to save part A, to make sure the hospital bills will be able to be paid. The Finance Committee took this step. They took it for, I think, all the right reasons, for good policy, to eliminate subsidies for upper- income people. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan recommendation that came out of the Finance Committee and to vote no on the Kennedy amendment. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, let's have a bipartisan vote for responsibilities not to score some points, but really try to make sure Medicare funds will be there when promised. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart showing the Medicare eligibility age as to what it is today and what it will be should this amendment be adopted.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I wish to compliment several speakers, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and Senator Conrad of North Dakota, for excellent statements, and Senator Gramm and others who spoke out on the need for policy change. Some of my colleagues on the other side say it was not in the budget agreement. That's right. The reason they can make a point of order is it has no financial impact over the next 5 years. The reason is, as proponents of this amendment, we wanted to give people plenty of time to make this change, to get rid of the eligibility time to be concurrent with Social Security. I urge my colleagues on the other side who are opposing this amendment to take a look at the estimate of 1997 Hospital Insurance Trustee Report regarding what the health of Medicare part A trust fund will be. It is going broke and it is going broke rapidly. Some of my colleagues say this bill keeps the trust fund solvent for 10 years. You will not hear this Senator say it because I do not think it is the case. We are making some changes. We are going to save $115 billion in Medicare. In addition, we are going to transfer home health, over a period of years phase it into part B, three-quarters of which is paid for by general revenues, by taxpayers. I do not think it keeps the trust fund solvent for 10 years. I am looking at the trust fund report. It says that by the year 2005 Medicare part A is going to have a $97.3 billion revenue shortfall, deficit; in Medicare alone, almost $100 billion by the year 2005, only 7.5 years from now. I fail to see how we are going to keep it solvent for 10 years. To address some long-term reforms, the Finance Committee passed some good policy changes that will make eligibility for Medicare concurrent with Social Security, and, yes, that means somebody my age is going to have to wait another year before he or she is eligible for Medicare. Well, guess what? Life expectancy has increased since 1965. Males age 65 are now expected to live 15.5 years and females age 65 will live 19 years. In 1965, a male age 65 would live on average only 13 years and a female 16 years. People are living longer. And the percentage of people who are paying into the system is decreasing. In 1965, we had 5.5 workers for every beneficiary. In 2030, there will only be 2.3 workers for every beneficiary. Some people seem to think the solution is raising taxes. If we want to keep the trust fund solvent for the next 25 years, the trustees say we should increase payroll taxes by 66 percent, and if you want to keep it solvent for 75 years, they say we should raise the current 2.9 percent tax--that is 1.45 percent for employee and employer--we should raise that to 7.22 percent immediately. I don't want to do that. I don't want to have that big a payroll tax increase. So what can we do to make the system more solvent? What can we do to make sure the money will be there when people need it? One of the things we can do, and one of the things that will come out of any report--any report--will say that we should have eligibility age be concurrent with Social Security. It is the right thing to do. I compliment my colleagues on the Finance Committee who have spoken on behalf of this amendment, as well as the chairman of the Finance Committee for putting it in. We didn't get any scoring for it. If anybody says we are doing it so you can pay for tax cuts for wealthy citizens, that is absolutely, totally, completely false. We got zero scoring for this, but it happens to be the right thing to do, and it happens to be in the long term, that this will help keep Medicare more solvent, it will help ensure there will be a Medicare program when I reach retirement age. It still won't solve the problems. I will tell my colleagues, even in spite of the fact we do-- and we have to do it and the earlier we do it the better off so people have more time to know the changes are coming--in spite of this, we are still going to have to make further changes. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a report of the part A trust fund by the hospital trustee report.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator give me 5 minutes off the bill?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. If I understood the Senator's statement, the $700 million the States would have to pick up, this is a program that will cost $121 billion next year for the Federal Government and that is growing at an unbelievable, unsustainable rate. So you are talking about a program over the next 5 years that is going to be well over $100 billion, and we are asking beneficiaries to pay $5, and in some cases the States may pick up a portion of that, maybe $700 million out of a total cost of over $100 billion. I don't find that unreasonable in any way.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to. I think if my colleague had listened to my speech, I mentioned this home health program, which is currently 100 percent Federal with no State match. Right now the States are not paying anything. So to have this in Medicaid, where Medicaid will pick up for lower-income beneficiaries a small portion of that--I might mention the Federal Government picking up, in most cases, 60 percent, in some cases 70 percent--is not the problem. What we are asking to do, what you are talking about, we are saying, ``Beneficiaries pay $5; pay $5 out of a total cost of a $70 visit.'' So the Federal Government is paying 65 percent, and the individual would pick up $5, and in some low-income cases, for some low-income individuals, the State might pick up 30 percent, or in some cases 40 percent, in some States maybe 50 percent of that share. To me that does not seem unreasonable.

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to respond to my colleague. I think what we have right now is a program that is 100 percent Federal.

Mr. NICKLES. Not on my time, on my colleague's time.

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague from Delaware. I also want to compliment him for his stewardship as chairman of the Finance Committee on this bill. First, let me just say a couple of things about the comments Senator Kennedy made. ``We are cutting Medicare so we can pay for tax cuts for wealthy people.'' I heard that comment made 2 years ago. I heard it a lot. ``They are gutting Medicare so they can pay for tax cuts for wealthy people.'' Just an interesting footnote, the amount of expenditures, the outlays, what we are going to spend on Medicare for this 5 years that are covered by this bill is $1.248 trillion. The amount of outlays that we had in the bill 2 years ago that the President vetoed and said it was gutting, decimating Medicare, was $1.247 trillion--a one-billion- dollar difference. So the outlays are the same. Did we make this change, this change dealing with home health care, so we could pay for tax cuts? The answer is absolutely no. What we did, in a bipartisan fashion, I think without dissent in the Finance Committee, in putting in the $5 copay on home health care, is recognize that we need to make some policy changes in home health care. This program is exploding in cost, and the reason why is quite obvious, if you look at. It is a program that is paid for 100 percent by the Federal Government. There is no copay by the beneficiary; the beneficiary does not pay a dime. There is no payment by the State. There is no copayment by anybody. It is Uncle Sam writing a check for 100 percent of the cost. There is no limit on the number of visits; you can have one visit, you can have 300 visits. So it is a program, by its very design, if Uncle Sam is going to pay for it all, obviously it is going to explode in costs, and that is exactly what has happened. Just looking at this program, in 1990 this program cost $4 billion. In 1995, 5 years later, it cost $16 billion. It is projected next year to cost $21.1 billion. It has growth rates--in the year of 1989 this grew almost 24 percent; the next year, 53 percent; the next year, 43 percent; 1992, 41 percent; in 1993, 30 percent; in 1994, 30 percent; in 1995, 19.4 percent. This is a program that is exploding in cost. The Finance Committee realizes this. Anybody who has looked at the facts realizes this and knows we need to change it. So the change, a very modest change, I might say, is we say the beneficiaries would have a $5 copay. That is not a lot on visits that may well cost $70 or $80, but at least it is a start. And it might have some marginal impact on behavior. Will it cost the lowest of our citizens as alleged by Senator Kennedy and others? I doubt it, because in most cases they have Medigap policies or it is picked up by Medicaid. So in some cases those people will have coverage. But doesn't the policy of having some copay make sense? This Congress had the courage to stand up and say we should have a copay on veterans for prescription drugs of $2. Some people screamed and said, ``Wait a minute, this is a breaking of a contract,'' and so on, but we realized that prescription drugs for non-service-connected veterans was exploding in cost. So we stepped forward very marginally and set a $2 copay on prescription drugs, and it did change behavior somewhat. This will change behavior somewhat. I urge my colleagues to read an article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal about the explosion of this program. They have home health care providers now, some of which are starting new companies-- they had no experience whatsoever--out of mobile homes. If you look at the number of providers, in 1991 there were a little less than 6,000 providers; in 1995, over 9,000 providers. Look at the number of beneficiaries, the total payment costs, the number of visits--this is a program that is truly exploding in cost. This was done in the Finance Committee, not so there could be greater tax cuts. As a matter of fact, I might mention--this is a little sore spot with me. The budget agreement said we would have $85 billion in net tax cuts. We did not end up with $85 billion; we ended up with $77 billion. So we did not even come up with the total amount of net tax cuts that the budget agreement, President Clinton and the leadership, agreed upon. So that argument, ``They did this so they could have more tax cuts'', is total hogwash. This was done in order to try to reform a program that is growing way out of control, and it was done in a bipartisan fashion. I hope we will continue to have bipartisan support. We need to have bipartisan support. I will make a couple of other comments. One of the things that was done in the budget agreement I do not agree with. It said let's transfer home health care away from part A into part B, to make part A look solvent. That is a shell game. I do not want to have my fingerprints on it. It is in this deal. I don't have the votes to change that. But that bothers me. It doesn't keep part A solvent. Well, I guess theoretically it does. We could keep part A solvent if we said we will move all the expensive hospitals, from Tennessee west, take them out, move them out of part A and then we'll keep part A solvent. That's a little bit of a shell game. This is one little reform on the fastest growing portion in Medicare that is real reform. It was done in a bipartisan fashion because we know we need to do something to constrain these costs. You cannot have a program that has total, 100 percent, Federal funding, has no State match, no participant match whatsoever, and no limit on the number of visits and say we hope we can constrain its costs. So I think this is a serious vote. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kennedy-Wellstone amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. First, I wish to----

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will be brief. I want to compliment my colleague from New Hampshire for offering this amendment. He mentioned this prohibition is not in the House bill. I hope to have something to do with the conference. I think he has brought out a very good point. We should allow some of these savings to go to the participants. So I appreciate his examination of the bill. That fact proves he has done his homework. I, for one, think he has pointed out a good option that we should allow to be available. I appreciate my colleague's attention in this matter. I will be happy to work with him to see if we can't come up with a good provision in conference. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] is necessarily absent.