Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, let me also comment on the issue that fills the morning headlines and the news stories--as well it should-- that relates directly to Medicare and the 37 million senior citizens who count on Medicare. We all know too well that some are not acting as if it is not going to happen. But, you know, it is right on the threshold. We are right on the brink. The Federal Government may shut down within 24 hours. That may be a thought that pleases a lot of people, but if you are trying to land an airplane and you are trying to make sure that you can get a passport to come back from Europe to this country, or whatever, this is a very, very grave subject. This has not happened, I think, since perhaps in the year 1990. And there is some thought that, if this happens, this time it will last longer. The last time it cost the American taxpayers $1.7 billion. Heavens only know what it will cost this time. But here we are. Is the Government going to shut down in 24 hours? Beyond that, the United States' fiscal integrity is on the line as it has never been on the line before. When Robert Rubin talks, it is interesting. He is not just sort of talking like the Secretary of the Treasury, so to speak. He is scared. He is afraid of what is going to happen. Why are we in peril? Why is our integrity in peril? Because our debt ceiling limit may not be extended in time. Why? Because the party, to be quite honest about it, Mr. President, that sought control of this Congress, that asked for the votes to be able to control this Congress--and has those votes and does control this Congress easily-- needed to be the majority party. You are. I would say to the Presiding Officer, you all are in charge. And the majority party now refuses to take care of one of the most basic responsibilities involved in Government. The Republican leaders are actually refusing to allow two basic measures--the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling extension--to travel from Congress to the President without a bunch of unnecessary, inappropriate, frankly some just silly baggage loaded onto these two monumental bills because of what can happen. It would be one thing if the majority would claim that they have completed their own promised work on the budget and a series of appropriations bills. But they have not. They are still negotiating the reconciliation bill in some room somewhere to figure out amongst themselves just exactly how they plan to cut Medicare by $270 billion. That is going on right now. And then to dole most of that money out through tax breaks. The Republican majority still needs to finish their own work on the budget, and we are 24 hours from shutting down the Government. Shutting down the Government is like shutting down the people, in certain respects--not in all respects, but shutting down the work of the people and what the people need to have done. So, for some reason, even though any teacher would give the Republicans an ``incomplete'' today on their promise to produce a 7- year budget plan, we find the majority party playing with fire and endangering the country in ways that can be and have to be avoided. Take the continuing resolution. That is the basic piece of legislation to keep the Federal Government operating so national parks stay open, passports get approved, checks go out. The list goes on and on and on. Of all possible pieces of baggage that the majority party could attach to this bill, never, ever, ever, never, ever, ever, did I think that they would take a premium increase in Medicare, a premium increase for Medicare beneficiaries and make it as their top priority-- to say to the President of the United States, ``You take this premium increase, Mr. President, or we will shut down the Government.'' Take this premium increase on 37 million seniors in this country or we will shut down the Government. We used to do that kind of stuff at camp except we did not run the Government. But that is the kind of stuff we used to do at camp, I say to my friend from Arkansas. The Republican leaders are actually demanding that the President swallow an increase in Medicare premiums in order to keep the Government running. The Government is meant to be serious stuff. The premium increase or whatever is going to happen, that comes in the commission stage later on. That should not be the issue now. The issue now should be to make Medicare solvent. I say to the President, do not swallow this ridiculous demand and do not give in to it. Do not do that to our country. Do not do that to your office. Do not humble your office in that manner, by agreeing to this Republican demand to hurt seniors as a tradeoff to keep the Government running. More than three-quarters of all Americans on Medicare have yearly incomes of less than $25,000 a year, and as I have said, in my home State of West Virginia--and I daresay in the home State of the Senator from Arkansas it is not much more than what it is in West Virginia--the average annual income for Medicare beneficiaries is $10,700 a year--not $25,000, not $17,000, $10,700 a year, and $2,000 plus already of that goes to health care. So that leaves them $8,000 for the rest of the year for everything else. And now we are going to add $150 or whatever of new premiums--and that is just part of doubling Medicare copays and deductibles as is contemplated in the rest of the majority party's budget plan. The specific Medicare premium increase that the Republican leaders are demanding would cost our seniors an extra $11 a month. That means their premium would go from $42.50 to $53.50 a month. Maybe the upper- income Americans in this body and some others of the upper-income Americans who are counting on a tax cut in the Republican budget bill will not notice the $11 increase in their premium insurance, but I guarantee you every last senior that I saw yesterday in town meetings-- that I have seen during the course of these years--will feel it and will have to make choices as a result of it. An extra $11 a month in cost just might mean skipping a couple more meals at the end of the month. Just talk, you say. No, it is not. It just is not. That is how fine the margin is for them. Or not being able to pick up one's heart medicine or coming up short when it is time to pay for the heating bill. That is why the President cannot in this Senator's judgment and will not in this Senator's judgment and should not even consider the idea of being pushed by Republicans to raise Medicare premiums even before they have finished their budget. Today is the day that the Republicans should give up trying to use Medicare and 37 million seniors and disabled Americans as pawns. This is that day. It is a ploy that is not working. It is a ploy which is not good. I think most Republicans probably recognize that at this point. Mr. President, I close simply by saying that what I am doing is begging my colleagues to walk away from this Medicare premium change at this point. Do not make the President veto it because of something like that. Let us try to do this properly and rationally. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield my remaining time to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That leads to the question as to States which are not restricted or whose standards are in compilation or regulations are being made, et cetera. I ask this question: It was my impression at one time in the evolution of the majority party's standards for nursing homes that each State was allowed to describe and make its own standards; is that correct?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Michigan, I just came on the floor this moment, but I thought I heard the Senator saying that States, where standards are as strict or stricter than Federal standards, could seek a waiver.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I understand that. I am not even talking about the waiver question. I am talking about the matter of States setting standards, whether or not they get to the waiver point. Is it not true that all 50 States would then get to set their own standards, and then at some point along the line, obviously somebody would make a judgment as to whether the waiver was justified or unjustified?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I think before the time runs out, let me just make my point to the Senator. And that is, I understand the point the Senator is making, but I think there are a large number of States, I believe, which do not come under any kind of Federal standards, whether they are by waiver or not, which are allowed to make their own standards, which is not exactly the same as it is today where States do have to comply with certain Federal standards, witness 1987. And that the Senator makes the assumption that the junior Senator from West Virginia would not make, and that is that the States would make standards for their nursing homes which would be at or above Federal standards. That is something which concerns me greatly, but I was trying to seek information from the Senator.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask that it be stated.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we have come to one of those days, I think, in the Senate and in this Congress which is pretty definitional. I think, based upon some town meetings that I held yesterday in West Virginia in very rural counties, people are really looking at the Congress today to find out what we are made of and whether or not we can govern. I think there is a suspicion that we cannot, but there is a hope that we will. The day that that will be determined will be, I suppose, today and tomorrow, but basically today, up until midnight. Mr. President, the reason that I have offered this motion, which the clerk just read, is to, in fact, do a favor for every Senator and to give every Senator an additional chance to defend what is probably the most popular program in this country--and that is Medicare--and to protect that program from robbery that can, in fact, still be stopped. But, at the moment, it is not being stopped and, therefore, 37 million Americans are in jeopardy. The motion, as the clerk read it, gives very precise instructions to the conferees of this reconciliation bill, who are in fact still trying to figure out what to do. If a Senator, at a later hour, is to vote for this motion, the Senator will be telling the conferees that Medicare-- again, probably the most popular program in the country--should only be cut to ensure that Medicare's solvency, the trust fund's solvency, is ensured through 2006. Now, there is no reason to ensure solvency longer than that period because, in fact, there has to be a longer term solution made, in any event, and that, I hope--and I know the majority leader hopes, and I know the ranking member of the Finance Committee hopes--that will be done by some kind of a commission which will be sort of a binding commission, a Base Closing Commission, wherein hard decisions will be made about the future of Medicare, how it is to be paid for, what it is to offer, et cetera, and that will be remanded back, so to speak, to the Congress, who will vote that up or down, and the President will sign it. My feeling would be, of course, that the Congress would vote for the bill, as they did the Social Security Commission, because it would be carefully thought through by a group of experts, and that is the longer term solution. But that is for another day. For the moment, we have to figure out how can we get from here to the year 2006 and keep Medicare solvent. The trustees of the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund have made it very clear in public statements, private statements, writings, official statements, unofficial statements, and in any statement they have ever made about this, that all of the problems of Medicare part A can be solved by means of an $89 billion cut. Of course, that is $181 billion less than the excessive and, I think, dangerous, and certainly unnecessary, cut of $270 million, which was put forward by the two versions of the Republican budgets now passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives. Mr. President, $270 billion of Republican cuts get you to the year 2006 for solvency, and $89 billion of Democratic cuts get you to the year 2006 for solvency. At some point, one has to ask the logical question: How come if both get you to the same place for solvency, even give or take a year, why is there such a difference? Why is there a $181 billion difference in what the Democrats are suggesting--this is what the trustees suggested to us--and what the Republicans are suggesting? [[Page S 16954]] This motion is a final chance to go on record for the survival and the solvency of Medicare. I repeat, a final chance. It really is. Every Republican Senator can take advantage in a sense of this 1-day special opportunity. If you want to make it clear that you do not want Medicare to wither on the vine, this is definitely the vote for you. These are not political words, in fact. The words could not be more clear. They could not be more precise. Mr. President, $89 billion does the job. Anything else is for some other purpose. Mr. President, $89 billion in cuts give Medicare solvency for the short and medium term. Anything else above that is for some other purpose. The trustees of the Medicare trust fund have said in print and in every other way that $89 billion of savings is precisely the amount needed to ensure Medicare solvency until that magic year of the year 2006. The problem for the Republican budget is that it needs a lot more money than $89 billion in cuts of Medicare. I am trying to say this as objectively as I can. It really does need more money. If there were $89 billion in cuts made out of Medicare, a major function of the Republican budget would fall on its face. I have a very strong suspicion, as do most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and surely some on the other side of the aisle, that the reason for $270 billion of cuts in Medicare and the reason, in fact, for $187 billion or $182 billion in cuts in Medicaid adding to $450 billion, to give ample savings or cuts so that the $245 billion tax break can be paid for. There are not many places in the Federal Government that you can go for money anymore. You cannot go to the Defense Department. We made about as many cuts as we can make there. You cannot go elsewhere--to the National Endowment for the Arts. You cannot go to AmeriCorps; that is being abolished. You really have to go to Medicare and Medicaid. If the proposition that people want to have a tax break for certain people and certain corporations, then, obviously, at the exact same moment as 7 years is being used to reduce the budget deficit to zero or purportedly to zero--there is discussion about that--you have to get a very large amount of money from some other source. Of course, that source, the largest of all of those sources, and the most tempting target, is Medicare. That is exactly where the Republicans go. They do that, as I indicate, to pay for tax breaks that are listed one after another after another, promising special dividends galore for people who are already wealthy, and corporations that want to pay less are willing to make working families pay more. Now, I do not agree with that philosophy. This is a democratic society, a democratic body. The Republicans control the Senate. The Republicans control the House. They have made their decision. This is what they want to do. Let it be clear that raiding Medicare is not reform. The last time I spoke on this subject, I had a Webster's dictionary and I looked up ``reform'' in that dictionary. Once again, I refer to that because the record of definition of ``reform'' is ``to put or change into an improved form or condition.'' That is how Webster defines reform: to put or change into an improved form or condition. Cutting $270 billion, $181 billion in excess of what is necessary, is certainly not putting or changing Medicare into an improved form or condition. Not only that, it is making decisions about Medicare which should not be made now, which should be made in the context of the longer term, which is the idea of the commission. Often Republicans say, ``Well, Democrats are afraid to means test.'' I do not think that is the case. I think Democrats are not afraid to means test. In this case, this Senator would not be afraid to means test. I would be very much afraid to means test in the absence of any other consideration of what is going on in Medicare. I want to look at means testing in the broad spectrum of a larger commission, which is what I think that President Clinton would do, perhaps within a year or, if he is reelected, within 2 years. Then call together 30 experts, as he did for the Greenspan commission, and sit down and discuss Medicare behind closed doors, with the public involved through consumers and seniors, experts, actuaries, and everybody else. When you want to, as Webster says, ``to put or change into an improved form or condition,'' you want to make sure you are doing the right thing with something that means so much to senior citizens and to some disabled, as does Medicare. So, $270 billion is not going to put Medicare into better form. It will put it into far worse form, a much worse condition. I think that is axiomatic. The numbers would simply say that. We do not have to wait and see. I do not want to wait and see right now what that means. The reconciliation bill lays out how to get $270 billion out of Medicare in various cold print. The majority party has said premiums and deductibles for seniors shall be doubled. Nothing hidden. The seniors I was with yesterday, their premiums will be doubled. Their deductibles will be doubled. Hospitals will get less. Rural hospitals-- I was in a county yesterday in which one of the rural hospitals had just closed, gone bankrupt. I am trying to figure out a way to save it. In the meantime, their costs, were they open, would go up, which makes it, of course, more difficult to open. Doctors will get less from Medicare. What is interesting is that some doctors have told us for the record that they are just not going to take older Americans as patients any longer. They are not going to accept them as patients. There will be a little sign on their shingle which says Dr. So and So, ``Medicare patients, not accepted.'' They have said that to us, Mr. President. I do not create that. If all the cutbacks and price increases for seniors could not generate $270 billion, then there is some automatic chain saw which no longer exists in the Senate budget which does in some other draconian form exist in the House budget, some automatic chain saw will keep on cutting Medicare. The Senate had a very infamous section to it called ``BELT,'' to whip out, to rip-off, so to speak, and then to take Medicare and cut it blindly. In other words, if Medicare grew faster--everybody knew Medicare definitely was going to grow faster. They set in this BELT program a very low growth possibility so obviously Medicare would fail the test, BELT would be put into effect, and then a whole series of cuts would then be put into effect in a whole series of services so they could no longer be offered to Medicare patients. I think the minority embarrassed the majority in this body to take that out. I am glad. I congratulate the majority party for doing that because I think it was wise to do. But that has not happened in the House, where it is very hard to embarrass the majority party. The minority party is not very good at it over there. They do not have the numbers to do it. In any event, as far as we know, it stays there, a BELT-like instrument, which is a meat ax, and that will just make the problem of seniors and paying for Medicare much, much, much, much worse. We offer this motion to instruct conferees to give Senators another chance to fix this budget--again; to get the priorities straight--again. Balancing the budget does not mean, I do not think, by definition, destroying Medicare, hurting Medicare, spending huge sums on new tax breaks and increasing the debt over the next 7 years. It means protecting Medicare's solvency with the $89 billion. It means limiting tax relief to what we can afford. Notice I am not saying abolish tax relief altogether, but simply limiting it to what we can truly afford. And then limiting it to those who can use it the best, who either need it the most or can use it the most productively, in terms of jobs, in terms of giving people a better opportunity, a life. Of course, it means using some common fiscal sense. That is the kind of budget we should be working together to pass in this body. I urge every Senator to vote for this motion. I am not sure that every Senator will, but I urge every Senator to do that. It is a bonus vote. Yes, it is our final--and yes it is a desperate--act, to try to convince Senators on the Republican side to protect Medicare and not sacrifice Medicare at this very early stage on the alter of budget deficit reduction for the purpose of a tax break. [[Page S 16955]] Let us remember why Americans of all ages feel so strongly about Medicare. It is one of the country's proudest achievements. It enables every American to count on dignity and decency when they retire and get older. It tells families fortunate enough to have parents and grandparents who grow old that they will not have to make the terrible choice between buying a house or sending a child to college and paying the health bill of a mother, father, grandmother or grandfather, as they get into their seventies and eighties or beyond that. The Members of this body on both sides of the aisle should always have courage to change course when the signs are obvious that it is time to go down a different road. We are at, now, such a time. This motion is a genuine effort to give Senators a chance to do just that. I do not know of any other way to appeal to the conscience of the majority in the Senate than by this motion to instruct the conferees. We have exhausted every other opportunity. We cannot vote on bills anymore. All we can do is to make a motion to instruct the conferees to consider what it is we have been trying to say. There is nothing else left to us, so we do what we possibly can to protect seniors. The plan to use Medicare to pay for other agendas is just not working. The public is not buying it. It is going over like a lead balloon out there on Main Street and in the coffee shops and living rooms and senior centers where cutting $270 billion from Medicare is understood very clearly. Again, I was at two town meetings yesterday in my State, in relatively rural counties. The people understand, there, the seniors understand, there, very well, exactly what has happened. They did not need to get a lecture from me on it. They understood it. That message has really gotten through. It is really hurting. If I were a member of the majority party in this body I would hear that message loud and clear. I would be somewhat afraid of that message. But most important, I would respect that message because it is a message which is coming directly from people who are affected by it and they do understand it. They understand it very clearly. The American people are really paying attention to this part of our debate over priorities. A lot of the rest may go by, but this part they are paying close attention to. They are tuned in and they are turned off and they are angry and they are scared. Not by the minority, but by the fact that their premiums and deductibles will get doubled; that they may be turned away by hospitals or doctors; that hospitals will lose money. Hospitals will not turn them away--but they are scared of the idea of $270 billion in Medicare cuts. And they have every reason to be scared about that, because the $270 billion in cuts are not needed, they are not called for. They have another agenda. Before Medicare was enacted, just under half of America's elderly had no health insurance--over half had no health insurance, in fact, whatsoever. Can you imagine that? To be 80 years old and have no health insurance? What would that mean to a lady or a man, perhaps living by themselves, to have no health insurance? Today, 97 percent of America's seniors do have health insurance, thanks to Medicare. And that includes 330,115 older and disabled citizens in my State of West Virginia. I happen to care about them. I want to see the right thing done by them. The right thing can still be done by them, for them, by us. Nationwide, these are Americans whose average income is $17,750, which is not very much money. Not so in West Virginia. In West Virginia the average income for seniors is $10,700 a year, of which already one- fifth is being spent on health care. So think about what an $11 premium increase per month would mean? In other words, if you start out with $10,700 and then already 21 percent is being spent for health care, so that is more than $2,000. And then you have to add on another $1,000 just for the premium. You come very quickly to the point where these folks, who are real people--you know they are real people, they come out in the cold to meetings in West Virginia and other States, and meet with us. They are afraid. I did not tell them to be afraid. They are afraid. They arrive at the meetings afraid. That is why they came to the meeting, because they are afraid and they want to know is there going to be a change in this policy? They want to stay healthy. They want to stay alive. They do not even get prescription drugs, do they, under Medicare? They do not even get prescription drug coverage; or home care, which is what we all want. They cannot get that under Medicare. But certain things they can get and they really do want them. If I could be very blunt about it, Medicare, I think, is on the short list of America's all-time great accomplishments as a Nation. I think it belongs on the list that includes winning the American revolution, breaking off with the British, in other words, and starting the world's greatest democracy; establishing Social Security; stopping Hitler and ending the Asia part of the Second World War; sending a man to the Moon. I put Medicare in a league with those. We had hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed in the Second World War. We have hundreds of thousands of seniors who live, dependent, upon Medicare in West Virginia, and 37 million across the country each and every year, except that the number gets larger. Medicare should not be treated like the bank standing there on the corner to be robbed so the money can be just handed out to the most wealthy, even though some of the intentions might be good. Before the conferees finish their work, this motion is a chance to give up on an idea that is making Americans mad. And it is not just senior Americans. At town meetings I have gone to over recent months--and the one I was at yesterday--it is not just the seniors that are mad. It is all of those folks that turn out in those rural counties that are mad. They are angry that this is happening--happening in a sense without their knowledge. The knowledge has gotten through because of the press after its usual preoccupation with trying to figure out not the substance of the issue but who wins and who loses. Are the Republicans up? Are the Democrats down? What is Clinton going to do? What is he not going to do in the offer to the President today? That is what it always is. That is what these people have to get. It is political warfare. It has nothing to do with their lives. That is for the most part what the media out there covers. So it is hard for them to get the point, but they are informed on this issue. So, again, before the conferees finish their work, this motion is a chance to give up on the idea that is making Americans so mad and is forcing the budget process to remain divided and contentious--in some ways is forcing a constitutional crisis. I will get to that in a moment. The Senators on this side have absolutely no choice, Mr. President--no choice. We have exhausted our remedies. There is nothing more we can do. We are in the minority trying to fight for Medicare. But we have exhausted our remedies except for something called a motion to instruct conferees, which probably will not pass, but I hope it does. I hope it does because it is in the interest of everybody in this body and certainly in the interest of senior Americans. The President has absolutely no choice but to promise the veto pen. We were elected to stand for what we think this country stands for. That includes the idea of health, income security through Medicare, through Medicaid, and through Social Security--all of these things-- when you have finally finished your working years and you reach your later years. I know the people of West Virginia expect me to keep fighting for Medicare. They told me that yesterday. Go back there and fight. Go back there and fight. That was their instruction. They understand that balancing the budget does not mean using Medicare as some kind of a fund for giveaways. It means using Medicare for Medicare. The Senate can agree on a budget that will eliminate the deficit, but only when we first agree that Medicare should still be standing the day that vital goal is reached. Mr. President, I voted for a balanced budget in 7 years. It was not the one that prevailed. It was another one. But [[Page S 16956]] it balances the budget in 7 years. I am for that. So I do not offer this as some kind of an evasive mechanism. I offer it with the deepest sincerity, with a real sense of fear for what is going to happen to our seniors, and potentially to our country. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to protect Medicare and the millions of seniors who should hear from us that their security is not being traded away. Let me also just make a comment at this point. If I might ask how much time is remaining to this Senator?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, this particular motion to instruct is to say to conferees that Medicare should not be cut by more than $89 billion, which is sufficient to keep it solvent to the year 2006, and that any money necessary to ensure budget neutrality would come from the tax break. That is it. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge the Senate to pass the pending legislation, S. 992, the proposed Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 1995. Mr. President, effective December 1, 1995, this bill would increase the rates of compensation paid to veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation, or DIC, paid to the survivors of certain service-disabled veterans. The rates would increase by 2.6 percent, the same percentage as the increase in Social Security and VA pension benefits for fiscal year 1996. Mr. President, there are 2.2 million service-disabled veterans and over 300,000 survivors who depend on these compensation programs. These individuals have made enormous sacrifices on behalf of this Nation. As ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am committed to ensuring that these veterans and veterans' survivors receive the benefits they deserve. I believe strongly that we have a fundamental obligation to meet the needs of those who became disabled as the result of military service, as well as the needs of their families. This [[Page S 16939]] measure fulfills one of the most important aspects of that obligation. Mr. President, ever since I began my career in public service, I have worked closely with the veterans of my home state of West Virginia, and now, as ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have had the opportunity to work with veterans all across the country. Consequently, I am keenly aware of the fact that the compensation payments that would be increased by this bill have a profound effect on the everyday lives of the veterans and veterans' survivors who receive them. It is our responsibility to continue to provide cost-of-living adjustments in compensation and DIC benefits in order to guarantee that the value of these essential, service-connected VA benefits is not eroded by inflation. I am very proud that Congress consistently has fulfilled its obligation to make sure that the real value of these benefits is preserved by providing an annual COLA for compensation and DIC benefits every fiscal year since 1976. Most recently, on October 25, 1994, Congress enacted Public Law 103-418, which provided for a 2.8-percent increase in these benefits, effective December 1, 1994. Mr. President, we cannot ever repay the debt we owe to the individuals who have sacrificed so much for our country. Service- disabled veterans and the survivors of those who died as the result of service-connected conditions are reminded daily of the price they have paid for the freedom we all enjoy. The very least we can do is protect the value of the benefits they have earned through their sacrifice. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support this vitally important measure.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will just take 5 minutes. Mr. President, this amendment is a no-brainer. We are giving every Senator a chance to separate him and herself from a truly dumb idea concocted in the other body. Before us is a continuing resolution--the legislation that pays the bills for the Federal Government to function starting on Tuesday--now being used as a freight train for baggage that does not belong on this train. With this amendment, we are saying throw the Medicare premium increase over the side before it is too late. With this amendment, vote for tossing out the provision to increase the monthly premiums that 30 million senior citizens pay to receive Medicare's part B coverage, otherwise known as physician care and services. No matter what you think seniors should pay for the Medicare, the continuing resolution is not the bill to hitch onto. If you want seniors to pay 100 or 2 percent of the costs of their Medicare, this bill is not the time, the place, or the vehicle for setting the price tag of Medicare premiums. In fact, I am incredulous that anyone would want to increase Medicare premiums ahead of doing a single thing to improve, save, or reform Medicare. The Members on the other side of the aisle told Americans they should be in the majority of Congress. They won the elections last November to do that. But Mr. President, being in charge also means being responsible. Being in charge means making sure that on Tuesday, the Federal Government can open national parks, enforce law and order, answer the phones when veterans are calling about their benefits or try to visit a VA hospital, process student loans and passport requests, and perform thousands of other responsibilities that Members of Congress are supposed to be here watching over. Being in charge does not mean throwing the kitchen sink onto the basic piece of legislation to fund the Government. And it sure does not mean throwing in a Medicare price increase for senior citizens, hoping it just slips through. Can someone explain the sudden rush to raise Medicare premiums? The cost of seniors' Medicare premiums should be determined when Congress decides Medicare's overall future. Vote for this amendment to take this issue off of the CR, and put it back where it belongs--in the discussion of Medicare's future, what is a fair share of costs for seniors to bear, and whether Medicare should be cut to save Medicare or cut to pay for tax breaks for the rich. That all still needs to be settled, and it is going to take some more work, I assure everyone listening. Instead, here we are faced with an absolutely critical bill for Congress to get enacted in the next 48 hours, with an 11th-hour addition designed to make sure senior citizens pay more for their Medicare beginning in January 1996. How ridiculous can you get? Let me be very clear: Unless you vote to strip this bill of the Medicare baggage, you will vote to send senior citizens on Medicare a total annual bill for their part B premium of $642--$1,284 a year for couples--starting in January 1996. The provision misplaced into this bill will charge seniors an extra $11 more a month, an extra $132 more a year, in order to keep getting Medicare coverage for physician care. This bill is not the place to approve a Medicare price increase for seniors. We already know why so many Republicans want to increase the cost of Medicare premiums for 37 million seniors. In fact, we already know why the Republican budget calls for $270 billion in Medicare cuts. It is simple. The same Republican budget spends $245 billion on new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and all kinds of corporations. Raiding Medicare is the idea, ignoring the fact that only $89 billion is needed to keep the trust fund solvent for 10 years. It is that simple and it is that wrong. This is not about preserving and protecting Medicare. And the provision in this continuing resolution is not about making sure the U.S. Federal Government will still function on Tuesday. This provision is a premium hike designed to collect more from Medicare beneficiaries in January, money to pay for tax breaks for someone else. The provision in this bill will put a new burden on seniors who already spend more than one-fifth of their income on insurance, prescription drugs, long-term care services and other health care needs not covered by Medicare. It is wrong to burden seniors with more costs so that there will be money to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. This Medicare premium provision does expose a basic truth. Cutting Medicare by $270 billion--that is $181 billion more than the Medicare trustees call for to protect the Medicare trust fund--is not needed to preserve the Medicare program. How do you preserve today's Medicare program by insisting that seniors pay higher premiums than would occur under current law? You do not. This is not about preserving anything, improving anything, or protecting anything. This is about targeting seniors as a financing source for the Republicans' budget that is going to hurt seniors, not help them in the least. Increasing costs for Medicare beneficiaries as part of a bill to keep the Federal Government up and running does not make any sense at all. It is a rifle shot aimed at the millions of seniors who rely on Medicare. It should be struck from this bill and I ask my colleagues to vote for our amendment to get it out of this absolutely vital bill that must be passed now, must be clean of debris completely, totally, and immediately. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the minority leader, Mr. President. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader. The Republicans are asking seniors to pay more than Congress intended because they want seniors to pay more. They think they should pay more, and this, I warn my colleagues, is the beginning of the Republican plan to ask seniors to pay more for their health care coverage.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my good friend, the Senator from South Carolina, who has fought for these issues for a long time. I am very glad that the Senator from Michigan does not want to eliminate the Department of Commerce because, as the Senator from South Carolina says, it seems to me that is the closest thing to unilateral disarmament as this country could accomplish. There is an enormous battle going on right now, and we are not winning. Just exactly at the time that the United States is reducing our defense civilian research and development, the Japanese--whose [[Page S 16904]] economy is not in particularly good shape--are doubling their nondefense research and development. Either we are going to be training the next generation of engineers who will manufacture products which will in fact be the kind of products that give high wages--in fact, if you look at 1992 and the high-technology products, those wages in the manufacture of those products were $41,000, and other wages that did not relate to that were closer to the upper 20's. So are we going to be producing the next generation of engineers, or is it going to be the Japanese? One of the arbiters of that--not the entire arbiter of that, but one--is the work done by the Department of Commerce. The concept of eliminating the Department of Commerce is just so fundamentally shocking to me, because it works every day with small businesses and large businesses in very creative ways. Mr. President, this is an amendment to clean off what I call the graffiti that has been scrawled onto the debt ceiling measure before us. In the other body, something called Department of Commerce Dismantling legislation was tossed onto this debt limit bill. This is an embarrassing way to deal with something as profoundly important as the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The amendment to erase the Commerce Department Dismantling part from this bill should be adopted; and I truly hope it will be delivered with the kind of strong, bipartisan signal that I am convinced exists among us. Everyone in the Senate knows that Americans want us to insist on a more effective, better-managed, better-organized federal government. I would not even try tonight to recite how I believe both the Administration and many of us here in the Senate have pursued that goal in the past several years. But Americans are not asking us to insult them. If you look at what the Commerce Department Dismantling bill would actually end up costing us--and how much it would end up hurting us--this idea is one to stop, and stop now. Actually, the elimination of the Department of Commerce is a terrific way to strengthen our foreign competitors and weaken the United States economically. The supporters of such a move may not intend to do that-- but the effect would be the same. The Department of Commerce is the agency that day-in and day-out is working with America's businesses-- from the smallest in size to our major corporations--to research the latest technologies, export our products to every conceivable market, enforce our laws against unfair and destructive trade practices that hurt American workers and businesses, and perform a series of other missions that we cannot afford to abandon for a single minute. Look at what happened in the other body when they took the Department of Commerce into their operating room. They did not simply wipe out an agency. They were forced to take division after division and actually create new agencies with new addresses and new bureaucracies to make sure the work still gets done. The legislation in this debt limit bill would waste taxpayers' money and many years' effort on taking apart many parts of the Commerce Department only to transplant them someplace else. The dismantling legislation does try to eliminate completely a few aspects of the Commerce Department's work. Among the major targets are the programs that invest in technology and represent a significant part of this country's commitment to research and development. Mr. President, this is exactly the wrong time to back away from R&D, especially in the emerging technologies that determine whether this is the country that will make the new type of computer chip or whether it will be Japan * * * whether ours will be the country to stay ahead in telecommunications or whether we just hand our competitive edge and markets over to Europe. Will we continue to manufacture the products that pay our people higher wages and support a middle-class, or will we trade places with other countries scrambling to claim our place in an increasingly competitive world--and watch wages in America go down and down? A report just released by the President's Council of Economic Advisors rang some clear warning bells about this country's economic future. They are warnings, they are not a death notice--yet. The Council looks at the budget cuts being proposed this year in Federal non-defense research, amounting to a 30-percent cut by the year 2002, and flashes a glaring red light to alert us of the danger we face. As we speak, Japan is planning to double its government support of non- defense R&D. We simply cannot retreat from investing in science, in technology, in innovation, and expect to produce the prosperity and standard of living that supports the American way and the American dream. It is just not possible. This country has such a proud, long history of innovation and optimism about the future through our commitment to education, to research, and to knowledge. When we think of ourselves as a nation, we think of ourselves as intellectual pioneers and entrepreneurs. We think of Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, the space program, and, now, the new pioneers like Bill Gates. American support of technology and research has led to the success of the airplane, the jet engine, computers, and even the Internet. This is what the Department of Commerce is about--it operates a series of programs that do everything from working as a partner with industry to developing new path-breaking technologies, to running a series of manufacturing extension centers that exist to help small- and medium-sized businesses in every single State learn how to take advantage of technology. These are the programs that generate jobs, exports, and opportunity in West Virginia and in every other State of the Union. The Commerce Department is the missionary agency for exporters, small, medium, and large. Anyone who has worked with the U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service knows how hard they fight for the best interests of American firms abroad. They have done yeoman's work on trade missions I have led for West Virginia companies in Japan and Taiwan. It is my strong belief that we were so effective in those missions, in large part, because FCS officers put business first. The dismantling legislation would eliminate their presence in this country and merge the foreign offices with the United States Trade Representative's office. USTR does not want or need to be burdened with having to negotiate on the one hand and promote and enforce on the other. This dismantling is not about better government. It is not about improving our trade promotion. It is not about making the enforcement of our trade laws work more efficiently. And it is certainly not about making it easier for our trade negotiators to do their jobs. If this were about better government, we would not be burdening the U.S. Trade Representative with a big and unfamiliar bureaucracy. If this were about better government we would not be creating a bunch of new agencies. If this were about better government, we would not be asking our trade agency to balance trade negotiation, trade law enforcement, and trade promotion. If this were about better government, we would not be relegating our Nation's trade agenda to a lower level, taking it out of the Cabinet, and moving the business of American business off the Nation's agenda. Again, abolishing the Department of Commerce is an excellent way to strengthen our foreign competitors and weaken the United States economically. I find it hard even to conceive how the proponents concocted such a notion. At a time when our country has to compete with more than 120 other nations for markets and jobs, where is the logic in eliminating the single agency dedicated, day-in and day-out, to outdoing our competitors in exports and trade? At a time when technology is the proven key to America's economic growth, to success in selling products in foreign markets, and to defining our national belief in progress and innovation, where is the sense in killing off our already-modest support for American technology? The Department of Commerce provides a set of useful and necessary tools to help small and medium-sized businesses get a better handle on technology and to invest in longer-term R&D aimed at making [[Page S 16905]] major technological advances and ensuring that the U.S.--not our competitors--will have the high-wage jobs and high-tech industries. When we are fortunate to have one agency focused on American business and industry, with a voice in the Cabinet, a direct link to the President, and proven clout in the world, how does one come up with the idea of getting rid of it? If I believed in conspiracies, I would find myself thinking that this back door effort, this attempt to attach a lame piece of legislation to the debt ceiling--a piece of legislation that could not get through the Congress on its own--was some kind of foreign plot to steal American jobs, break our trade laws, and force a technological and economic surrender. That is what this bill is--surrender on the field of economic and technological competition--and that is why proponents know that if they tried to ride this broken down horse of legislation through on its own, the Senate in its good sense would put it out of its misery. I say to my colleagues, resist the temptation to flash in front of the American people an easy symbol of your commitment to deficit reduction and shrinking government. Resist making a vague ideological point at the expense of your Nation's best interests. Think of what you would feel about abolishing the Department of Defense at the height of the cold war. This legislation before you is the same lunacy-- suggesting economic disarmament at the very time when the United States should be beefing up our arsenal of trade enforcement, export promotion, technology investment, and local economic development. So I am glad that the Senator from Michigan is going to wait until another day to try to do this. I will be here at that time to try to defeat that effort. But I am glad it is not taking place this evening. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise with Senator Byrd today to recognize Bluefield State College as it celebrates its centennial. Since its founding in 1895, Bluefield State College has been committed to providing quality education in southern West Virginia. These many years are a heroic story of hard-won and remarkable achievement, truly an inspiring legacy. Founded to improve education for African-American students in the region, the college began as the Bluefield Colored Institute [BCI]. It served the segregated schools of turn-of-the-century coal camps. Through the dedication of local citizens and its first president, Hamilton Hatter, BCI flourished, even operating for 2 years without State funds. As time went on, the school established formal teacher instructions. By 1954, Bluefield became an integrated school serving all students in southern West Virginia. Over the years, the school has worked to strengthen the institution and to expand its curricula to serve the changing needs of its students. Recent efforts include expanding Bluefield State College's degree program into areas including engineering technology, computer science, business administration, and the health sciences. These new fields of studies are designed to prepare the students of today for the challenges of the 21st century. Mr. President, as Bluefield State College celebrates its centennial, Senator Byrd and I think it is fitting to praise its dedicated faculty and staff, including current President Robert Moore, for their educational vision and creative spirit. Bluefield State College, proud of its strong past, stands ready to meet the changing needs of an expanding and dynamic region of the State. It has done an exemplary job of offering educational opportunities to many students in southern West Virginia. We join every West Virginian in congratulating Bluefield State College for 100 years of dedicated education and community leadership. We wish it continued success for the next century. This fine institution has made all of us very proud.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I object.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. ``Raid'' is, ``1a: a hostile or predatory incursion; b, a surprise attack by a small force. ``2a: a brief foray outside one's usual sphere; b: a sudden invasion by officers of the law; c: a daring operation against a competitor,'' and, again, here I think the definition is wandering off into different territory. But my point, obviously, is what we are contemplating, and what it is, in fact, that we have put forth in reconciliation is not yet accounted for, not yet conferenced with the House, and is nothing less than the ``raiding'' of Medicare. I assume that there are those who feel very differently about it. But I do not. I feel very strongly about it. I speak as a representative of the State of West Virginia where the average senior income for seniors in general is $10,700 a year, and 21 percent of that goes already to health care, unless the senior is 84 years old, which increasingly seniors are, in which case it is 34 percent of the $10,700. You can see, therefore, that the amount of money that is being spent on health care already by Medicare recipients, beneficiaries, is enormous. So the majority party wants to fix Medicare, to reform it. And they want to do that by cutting $270 billion from it, they would say to slow the growth by a rate of $270 billion. I, incidentally, had responsibility in the 1993 Budget Act, so to speak, for cutting $56 billion out of Medicare. I never referred to it as ``slowing'' the rate of reduction. I always referred to it as ``making the cut.'' And I hold to the same language then as now because that is what I believe. It is like, if you had a certain amount of money 3 years ago and you have the same amount of money now, a hip replacement has gone up by 22 percent in cost, you cannot do 84 percent of the hip replacement. You either do the hip replacement and you can pay for it, or you do not have the money for it and you cannot do it at all. So this whole question of rate of growth is one that I will leave for historians to worry about. But any way you slice it, if you are cutting $270 billion--and when all the trustees of the hospital insurance trust fund say that you have to cut it $89 billion--then you come to the obvious conclusion that those who would cut $270 billion are saving Medicare for a much longer period of time than those who would only cut it by $89 billion. But an interesting thing happens. The fact is that, if you cut $89 billion, as the trustees have recommended publicly in testimony and every other way, Medicare will be solvent until the year 2006. On the other hand, if you cut it $270 billion, guess until what year Medicare will be solvent? The year 2006, the same year, the same amount of time. So the whole question then arises, Why cut $270 billion out if $89 billion will do the job over the period of the next 10 years? The answer, of course, is in the contract phase of the need for the $245 billion tax break. I understand that intellectually because, if you are going to get a $245 billion tax break and at the same time balance the budget in 7 years, you have to get your hand on a whole lot of money, and there is not a whole lot of money in any one pot, except if you go to Medicare, or if you go to Medicaid. Those are the two pots. Those are the two pots that you can go to under reconciliation or a Budget Act, and simply get large amounts of money, if you are of a will to do so. However, the consequence of what the majority party is doing in the Senate, and has done in the Senate, means that Medicare recipients are going to have to pay enormously more from out-of-pocket expenses--out of their own pocket expenses, and all of this to fund a tax break. There is going to be about $1,700 less per beneficiary by the year 2002. Deductibles are going to be doubled. Premiums are going to be raised. The eligibility age for Medicare is going to go from 65 to 67 years old, and there will be an enormous amount, I believe, of danger in equality and quantity of health care. Let me explain what I mean. Putnam County General Hospital, Mr. President, is what I would imagine many hospitals are like in the Presiding Officer's State. It is a rapidly increasing county in terms of its income, and in the sense of upscale county. Its future is unlimited. It has most of the flat land, or a lot of the flat land in West Virginia, and a lot of upper income houses as well as middle-income houses. Yet, when you go to the administrator of that hospital, he will tell you that between 68 percent and 72 percent of his entire revenue stream is paid for not by the newly dynamic wealth of Putnam County, not by private-pay patients, but by Medicare and [[Page S 16580]] Medicaid. He says that if this cut is allowed to stand, that Putnam General Hospital is in severe difficulty. The mathematics make it clear--$270 billion cut in Medicare, $187 billion cut in Medicaid, and, hence, real problems for that relatively upscale hospital. We have a lot of hospitals in West Virginia that do not fit that category. They are in very rural counties. Many shut down some years ago. They depend almost entirely on Medicare or Medicaid for their revenue stream. When I say the ``revenue stream,'' I just simply mean the money they use to pay their doctors, nurses, oxygen, their light bills, and the rest of it. I believe--I do not really think anybody can make the argument--that the Boren amendment, by which you are meant to pay people much closer to the services that they render, has now been tossed aside. And I believe that doctors, physicians who have been taking care of seniors for many years are--some of them--going to be in the economic position where they will have to simply say on their little shingle, ``Dr. So- and-So. But if you are on Medicare, please do not stop here. I cannot afford to treat you. I cannot afford to treat you.'' In other words, I believe that doctors will be driven out of the program and Medicare beneficiaries will be turned away. There is another problem which we, in fact, cured in the Senate. This is the most devastating problem. It came pretty much as news to everybody. But it has not been cured in the House. Therefore, I consider it to be a live neutron bomb just sitting there on the table. It was the majority party's efforts to, in fact, get control of the cost of fee-for-service Medicare. Obviously, some Medicare patients are in HMO's. It is estimated that as much as 20 percent may go into HMO's. But, obviously, the great body of Medicare beneficiaries are in fee- for-service Medicare, and they like that. They like that for one reason--because, by definition, over the years it has always meant one thing, and, that is, they get to go to the doctor of their choice. They get to choose the doctor of their choice, they get to keep the doctor of their choice, and use the doctor of their choice. And that is the central, sacred theme of fee-for-service Medicare. But until it was taken out in the Senate--I will say that the junior Senator from West Virginia probably had something to do with that by talking about it for about an hour one day several weeks ago--there was this thing called BELT which was a mystery. Nobody had heard of BELT. BELT stands for budget expenditure limit tool. I am not discussing something in the abstract. We thankfully have taken it out of the Senate's package. But it remains--and in fact a rougher one remains--in the House. So that in the conference, where I always have this worry that the House is going to outdo the Senate because of their fervor--they appear to be less willing to negotiate, less willing to compromise on both sides than the Senate, so I always worry very much about the conference. So the way this would work would be that the majority party now in the House would assign about a 4 percent, 4.7-percent growth rate to Medicare, the cost of health care in Medicare. Now, we know that the actual cost of the increase in health care in Medicare is over 7 percent. But if this rate of growth of the cost of health care exceeded 4.7 percent, automatically--automatically--there would be a sequester and there would be automatic reductions, arbitrary in nature but absolute in fact, in key Medicare spending in the following year. The cuts that are specifically listed were inpatient hospital services, home health services, hospital care services, diagnostic tests, physicians' services, outpatient hospital services. As far as I know, that is most of health care. Mental health and other things are not in there, but that is most of health care. There would be, therefore, this sequestration and a ratcheting down so that the so- called fee-for-service concept for the Medicare beneficiary would simply disappear. It was all hidden in this little piece of paper and still resides in the House. So I am very, very worried about that. People listening may wonder why I am talking about Medicare. It could be that the Senator from Arizona is sharing some of those thoughts at this particular point. This is why I am talking about Medicare. I am here to use this opportunity to offer an amendment, which I will do but not immediately, to give the Senate yet another chance to walk away from some of the ills that I have been talking about and give it a chance to protect Medicare from the damage that is contemplated in the two versions, the House version and the Senate version, of the majority party's budget, which is, of course, now headed for a conference where, as I indicate, I worry because I think the House's fervor in some areas is in excess. I will offer an amendment very soon to do just what we have been trying to get a vote on for 3 days but have not been permitted to get a vote on for 3 days. We have been prevented from being able to do this until this opportunity. As most of my colleagues know, the Senate still needs to appoint conferees to the reconciliation bill so that we can negotiate some of these matters out. It is amazing that conferees have not been appointed, but they have not been appointed. This side can do nothing about that. That has not been done because the majority leader knows that the Members on this side of the aisle have just a few motions to instruct conferees. We only have a few. Of course, the purpose of this is designed to make one last plea for the prevention of damage to Medicare, for real nursing home protection, and one or two other vital goals. I think there are a total of maybe four or five. The bill now in the Chamber is a very appropriate place to make the same proposal. So I am here to make sure that when we are on a bill designed to spend billions more on a category of Social Security recipients through the earnings test we first discuss, debate and vote on the question of whether $270 billion is going to be cut from Medicare or whether that will not be the case and whether 30 million seniors are going to see their premiums increase or not, whether they will be turned away from doctors or whether they will not. So that is my purpose, and I share that respectfully with my colleague and friend from Arizona, who probably wishes that I had picked another time to do all this. But you do have to consider the fact that in spite of the fact that in West Virginia the average income for seniors is $10,700, nationally that same figure is only $17,750. Most of Medicare spending is for beneficiaries with very modest income, and we have discussed this before, but it bears repeating because I am not sure how far out there into the public this has gotten. Sixty percent of those with incomes of less than $15,000; 83 percent of those with incomes less than $25,000; 97 percent of those with incomes less than $50,000. This is a Medicare beneficiary population that we are talking about. As I have indicated, seniors already spend more of their income on health care in 1994 than anything else--21 percent. Nonsenior households, interestingly, only spend about 8 percent of their income on health care. Private insurance grew at a faster rate, almost 10 percent, than Medicare spending, which was about 7.7 percent, from 1984 to 1993. Under the Republican plan, as I indicated, Medicare will be squeezed to a growth rate of 4.9 percent--I believe I said 4.7; I correct myself--4.9 percent per person while private health insurance will continue to grow at over 7 percent per person over the next 7 years, relegating seniors to a second- rate, second-class health care system. My amendment will be a final opportunity for the Republicans in the Senate to defend--not raid but defend--the Medicare trust fund from a mind-boggling raid, a raid that will cut health care benefits, that will increase seniors' costs and threaten the very existence of hospitals, a raid that is designed purely and simply, mathematically, architecturally, self-evidently to pay for tax breaks tilted in favor of the most affluent, comfortable households in our great country. The reconciliation bill passed at 1 a.m. on Saturday last will cut Medicare by $270 billion over 7 years. We all know that. We have all been told that this will save Medicare, keep it solvent, make the program stronger. Wrong, Mr. President, wrong and wrong again. The professional experts [[Page S 16581]] in charge of keeping the books for Medicare, the actuaries, the professionals, the people who do this for a living, say that $89 billion will solve the problem. That is not the long-term problem. That is the short-term problem, from now through 2006, and then our suggestion would be that we do exactly what Ronald Reagan did, wisely and effectively, in 1981, when he appointed the Social Security Commission which came out in 1983 in fact with a solution for Social Security, a solution which was accepted by the people of this country, accepted by the seniors of this country, accepted by the Congress of this country, both sides of the aisle, because it had been entered into with the understanding that it would be done with the idea of it being fair, nonpolitical and, therefore, worthy of the support of all, including the President of the United States. It was an extraordinary ability. Senator Moynihan and Senator Dole were two of the members of that commission. What they did in service to their country and in service to the Social Security commission is little noted, but can never be forgotten by those who understand the consequences of their actions. Hospitals, doctors, and nurses and other health care providers in every single one of our States believe, with absolutely certainty--they do not equivocate--that cuts of this size, the $270 billion, will disintegrate the kind of health service that 30 million senior Americans have counted on for three decades, in a program that works, in a program that works in part because, prior to its passage, less than half of Americans had health insurance who were of the senior age. Why? Because if you are at the senior age and you have any kind of ailments at all, or you are just senior age, you cannot buy health insurance. If you have anything wrong with you at all, you cannot buy health insurance. You can have $10 million and you cannot buy health care. That is why Medicare took place. Now 99 percent of our senior population has health care insurance. What a wonderful thing that is, what a marvelous thing that is. I have no way of explaining to my constituents back in West Virginia, to the 330,000 Medicare beneficiaries in my State, why their Medicare deductibles will double, their premiums will skyrocket, and West Virginia hospitals are threatened with the possibility of losing $25 million in 1996 and more than $681 million over the next 7 years. I keep saying I wish this were some kind of a dream. But the threat is real, and it is not a dream. It is written into the pages of the bill that has been passed, unless, of course, we decide to change it. I can only report what I read in this budget package. So, $270 billion would be cut out of Medicare, $225 billion will be given--some say $245 billion, some say $225 billion--will be given away in tax breaks and giveaways. Then, Mr. President, there is the $187 billion which is sliced out of Medicaid, which is integrated into Medicare in its effect on our health care system, leaving the Medicaid system in tatters, as it is chopped up into block grants, something which States, no matter what their Governors might say, do not want--do not want. Talk to George Voinovich, talk to Christine Whitman, talk to some of those Republican Governors who have the courage to say what they feel. Talk to any of the Democrat Governors. I mean, I was a Governor of my State for 8 years. I know our present Governor does not want any part of it, because all he does now in his regular session, and then special sessions, and then additional special sessions, is try to figure out how to come up with more money to pay for Medicaid. Medicaid is about the only subject they even talk about. It is true, Mr. President, it is a terrible crisis in our State as it stands today, much less cutting $187 billion out of it and block granting. The response on the other side will be that we are exaggerating, we are trying to scare seniors. We do not agree with that. This budget is scary. The seniors I have talked to are scared. And, interestingly, they have become scared at what I would call a very rational pace, if I can explain myself. Some of the groups responsible for communicating with seniors have been rather casual about this whole subject, in my judgment. Indeed, the American Hospital Association for a period of time was rather casual about dealing with this subject. But, interestingly, seniors began to understand what the consequences to their lives might, in fact, become. They began to get very angry, very angry. And then some of the groups here in Washington started reacting to them. The hospital administrators already were very angry. They were angry months ago. But their association was not listening here in Washington as closely as it could have been. Now they are. And the American Hospital Association very much dislikes, and is very much opposed, and very blatantly and openly opposed, to these kinds of cuts because of what it will do to the hospitals that take care of the sick, including seniors in our country. Exhibit 1 [From Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition] \1\ re-form \ri-'form\ vb [ME, fr. MF reformer, fr. L reformare, fr. re- + formare to form, fr. forma form] vt (14c) 1 a: to put or change into an improved form or condition b: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses 2: to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action 3: to induce or cause to abandon evil ways <a drunkard> 4 a: to subject (hydrocarbons) to cracking b: to produce (as gasoline or gas) by cracking vi: to become changed for the better syn see correct Exhibit 2 [From Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition] \1\ raid \`rad\ n [ME (Sc) rade, fr. OE rad ride, raid--more at road] (15c) 1 a: a hostile or predatory incursion b: a surprise attack by a small force 2 a: a brief foray outside one's usual sphere b: a sudden invasion by officers of the law c: a daring operation against a competitor d: the recruiting of personnel (as faculty, executives, or athletes) from competing organizations 3: the act of mulcting public money 4: an attempt by professional operators to depress stock prices by concerted selling \2\ raid vi (1865): to conduct or take part in a raid vt: to make a raid on Amendment No. 3043

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. It says, ``a: to amend or improve by change of form or removals of faults or abuses; b: to put or change into an improved form or condition. ``2: to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action. ``3: to induce or cause to abandon evil ways,'' and then they use the example of a drunkard--odd. ``4: to subject (hydrocarbons) to cracking.'' I think I better stop there because that is rapidly getting into areas which I cannot be quite so sure of. Then I also, being the persistent intellectual at 1 o'clock every day, in my Webster's dictionary, I went to the word ``raid,'' because that is what those of us on this side of the aisle use referring to what happens to Medicare in the reconciliation bill. That is described, and I would similarly ask that portion which I read be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the Senator from Arizona. One of the things which actually is not generally, I expect, known that much is that Medicare as well as Medicaid are part of the Social Security Act that is being discussed, in fact, by the Senator from Arizona. It has to be said that when one looks at what might happen in legislation, what might be the result of a conference, what might be the result of a compromise following a veto by the President, should that happen, there is a lot of speculation about what might happen. But I think one thing which is very, very clear at this point is that what we are doing in the U.S. Senate and what we have done to Medicare, which is a part of the Social Security Act, is extraordinary. I would like, in fact, to take from my friends from across the aisle the word which they often use when they are discussing Medicare, which comes from the Social Security Act. They talk about reforming Medicare. I went, as I do every afternoon at 1 o'clock sharp, to my Webster dictionary, and I took out the word for ``reform.'' I ask unanimous consent when I am finished, Mr. President, if I can have this printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I understand and appreciate the concerns of senior citizens about the Social Security earnings limit. In the past, I have supported increasing the earnings limit for seniors who need to work, but it must be paid for responsibly. Today's proposal raised some questions for me. I was troubled by the effort to further cut domestic discretionary programs. While cutting domestic discretionary programs sounds simple, cuts of $9 billion could hurt West Virginia families and even seniors. Many of these programs that would be reduced under this proposal have already been cut severely. Plus the list includes fundamental programs for seniors themselves, like senior nutrition programs and the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program which helps seniors in West Virginia and other northern regions keep the heat on during the winter months. Cutting these programs could easily hurt the seniors that we say we intend to help by raising the earnings limit. Also, as Senator Simpson mentioned in his remarks, it is also difficult to determine what the effect might be of changing interest payments to the Social Security trust fund. Senator McCain acknowledged that this aspect of his legislation has not been fully studied, nor was it the focus during previous hearings on the overall issue. When it comes to the long-term solvency of the Social Security trust funds, I firmly believe we must be thoughtful and cautious. Seniors depend upon Social Security, and I want to ensure that they can continue to do so for generations. I voted for the point of order against Senator McCain's legislation because I believe that we must be cautious, consistent, and careful whenever we deal with the Social Security trust fund. Each and every aspect of this proposal should be fully considered by the Senate Finance Committee. We should not rush to judgment. We should not bend the budget rules when it come to Social Security. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I proudly acknowledge a group of citizens in West Virginia who are hard at work to address an issue affecting every citizen of our State: Lawsuit abuse. In many areas of West Virginia, local citizens are getting involved with a group they call Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, with the goal of making the public more aware of the costs and problems stemming from excessive numbers and kinds of lawsuits. The CALA effort focuses on education. These citizens are speaking out about an issue that has statewide and national consequences. The costs of lawsuit abuse include higher costs for consumer products, higher medical expenses, higher taxes, and lost business expansion and product development. The mission of Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse is to curb lawsuit abuse. Here is an example of West Virginians devoting energy and effort towards solving problems that cost our State jobs, profits, and opportunity. My own work in this has focused on the problems of our product liability system, and I got involved when I saw the terrible consequences of the country's confusing, patchwork, slow, and often unfair system of product liability rules that badly need reform. The help of individuals, including members of the legal profession, involved in Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse in West Virginia, has been crucial to the legislative success we are finally with the product liability reform bill that I introduced once again early in this Congress. In May, working closely with Senator Gorton of Washington State, we succeeded in winning Senate approval of our bill and we are now hoping to engage in a conference with the House of Representatives to develop a final bill for the President's signature. Legal reform of any kind is not a simple issue. The legal system must function to provide justice to every American. But that does not mean that the status quo is necessarily perfect. When lawsuits and the courts can be used in excess or result in imposing costs on other parties, from individuals to non-profit agencies to businesses, without reason, the system should be reviewed and reformed if possible. Through CALA in West Virginia, nonprofit groups have raised local funds to run educational media announcements and are speaking to local organizations and citizens groups across the State to raise public awareness on the lawsuit abuse issue. Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse groups have declared October 30 through November 3, 1995, as ``Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week'' in West Virginia. I want to commend these citizens for their dedication and commitment and to acknowledge this week as a time of public awareness on the serious issues associated with lawsuit abuse.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in my view, every United States Senator will be making a statement about their fundamental priorities as they cast their vote on this reconciliation package. While each and every vote cast on this floor is key, today's vote on the reconciliation bill is a pivotal one about the future of our country, and the role that our Federal Government can and should play in the lives and well-being of American families. While most of our debates have focused on budget numbers, I have tried to talk about the families and the real people who depend on Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and all the other major programs affected by this legislation in many serious ways. The provisions of this bill will have enormous impact on children, families, and seniors in West Virginia and every State [[Page S 16069]] in this Nation. We should be mindful of them as we cast our votes. I want to be clear. I believe we can and should balance the Federal budget and eliminate the Federal deficit. This is a vital goal, but it is equally important to ensure that the burdens of achieving a balanced budget are responsibly and fairly shared among all Americans. I strongly feel that we should not balance the budget on the backs of seniors, poor children, and working families. The programs that would be drastically cut and changed by this reconciliation bill often are the difference between security and insecurity, health and illness, and sometimes life or death for seniors and American families who depend on Federal programs for their health care security. I was proud to take the lead in offering the first major amendment to this budget, designed to save Medicare, a historic program that has provided seniors with health care security since 1965, giving them peace of mind and a higher quality of life. While some may cast aspersions on Medicare, I believe it is one of America's proudest achievements. Our amendment was not to retain the status quo. We know we must make changes in the system to restore the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. But the solvency of the trust fund does not require cutting Medicare by $270 billion. Such extreme cuts will threaten health care for 30 million seniors--330,000 of them living in West Virginia--and further erode our health care system. For seniors, the reconciliation package means that their Medicare deductibles will double and their premiums will skyrocket. When the average income of seniors citizens is $17,750, and they pay 21 percent of their income on health care, they are incredulous and petrified to hear that their Medicare is being used to pay for tax breaks and tax give-aways to far, far wealthier Americans and every imaginable kind of corporation. I cannot go back to West Virginia and hold town meetings in senior centers as I often do, and justify a vote to slash Medicare by $270 billion in order to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. West Virginians believe in fairness and common sense, and this attack on Medicare flunks that test. Seniors will not be the only ones hurt by the budget's Medicare cuts. West Virginia hospitals are threatened with the possibility of losing $25 million in 1996 and more than $681 million over the next 7 years, and I fear that some of our hospitals may not survive such cuts. For real people in West Virginia who depend on Medicare for their health care coverage, the Republican rhetoric about Medicare reform rings hollow. And Medicare is not the only health care program slated for harsh cuts under this Republican plan. This reconciliation package also seeks to cut Medicaid funding by a whopping $187 billion over 7 years. People need to understand what such harsh cuts mean. Medicaid covers poor children, pregnant women, the disabled, and low-income seniors who need nursing home care. What happens to these people and their families when we slash Medicaid funding? Coming from West Virginia, when I think of a family, I think about children, parents and grandparents. What happens to parents struggling to balance raising children and caring for aging parents? If a working family gets a new child tax credit but loses Medicaid nursing home coverage for an aging parent, what is the overall effect on that family? The child tax credit is $500 a year for ``some'' families lucky enough to qualify, but the loss of Medicaid nursing home coverage will cost those same families $16,000 to $30,000 a year. For example, Julie Sayres of Charleston, WV cared for her mother who suffers with Alzheimer's Disease as long as she could at home. But as her mother's illness got worse, she had to move to a local nursing home where Julie can visit her daily. Julie may get a partial child tax credit of $500 under this package, but if she cannot get Medicaid coverage for her mother in the nursing home when her mother's meager savings are exhausted, Julie and her family with be much, much worse off. That child tax credit will not cover even a month of nursing home care for her mother. This is real story about a family hurt, not helped by drastic health care cuts in this package. In my State of West Virginia, over 21 percent of our residents rely on Medicaid so their are countless more stories and fears about what will happen to aging parents. And it will not just be individual families hurt by the Medicaid cuts. The health care system in my State is fragile, rural hospitals are already closing, and West Virginia cannot absorb more than $4 billion in cuts without cutting necessary health care services, including basic issues like infant mortality. A recent newspaper article made this point, clearly with a headline: ``[Medicaid] Cuts may affect infant mortality.'' The article reports that my State, thanks to Medicaid-funded programs, has reduced its infant mortality death rate from 18.4 deaths per 1,000 in 1975 to 6.2 deaths per 1,000 in 1994 which is even better than the national rate of 8.0 deaths per 1,000 births. As Governor, I helped start the effort to reduce infant mortality, and I must protest any action that turns back the clock. We should not tolerate backwards steps on basic health care objectives like reducing infant mortality. I understand that Medicaid needs reform and Democrats offered an amendment that suggested reducing the growth in Medicaid spending in a responsible way with a per capita cap. I truly want meaningful reform of health care, but I do not believe that creating a Medicaid block grant is serious reform, it is merely passing the buck--or actually passes far fewer dollars and far greater problems onto States. This is not fair to states or to the Americans who desperately need health care from Federal programs. The assault on families in this budget package is not limited to the attacks on federal health care programs. Republican rhetoric claims that this legislation will help families, because of its $500 child tax credit. As chairman of the National Commission on Children, I am clearly on record in support of a child tax credit, but it must be a refundable credit so that children in all families can benefit. Unfortunately, the child tax credit in this legislation is not refundable, and every amendment offered to make it even partially refundable was rejected. Consequently, over 20 million children are excluded from this child tax credit, and I do not think this is fair. These children are in families earning less that $30,000 a year and their parents clearly need and deserve a tax break. To add insult to injury, not only do Republicans deny the credit to such hard working, low-wage families, Republicans are paying for the credit by imposing a tax increase on working families by cutting $43 billion from the earned income tax credit (EITC). There has been much debate about the EITC, and I want to clearly state that EITC is tax relief only available to working families, and it is designed to offset payroll taxes, which often are a greater tax burden for low wage families than personal income taxes. The Republican leadership dismisses these arguments, saying that their tax package helps middle class American families. And this sounds good, but I want to know how they define the middle class? In my State of West Virginia, we believe that parents who go to work every day and struggle to raise their children are middle class, admirable and deserving of support and encouragement. More than 65 percent of our taxpayers are working hard but earn less--less than $30,000. For many of these families, they will worse off, not better, under this bill. Just 2 years ago, these working families were promised tax relief. Now Republicans are reneging on that deal and raising taxes on families earning less than $30,000. For families with two or more children, their taxes will go up an average of $483. For families with one child, taxes will keep an average of $410. This will hit more than 77,000 families with children in my state of West Virginia alone. But such numbers can be numbing. We need to get beyond the rhetoric and look at real families. A real family, like the Helmick family of New Milton, WV, will be worse off, not better. The Helmick family has 6 children, ranging in age from 15 to four. Mr. Helmick works full-time as a [[Page S 16070]] truck driver for a local construction company, and Mrs. Helmick is a full-time homemaker. In the past, they have used their EITC for baby furniture and to buy a used truck so Mr. Helmick has reliable transportation to get to work. Mr. Helmick will not get to claim the full tax credit for his children, and he will lose EITC benefits under the Republican plan. This is a real working family that will be hurt, not helped. Families like the Helmicks cannot claim all of the child tax credit, and they will be hurt by the cuts in EITC; and I doubt that they will be claiming capital gains tax breaks either. For them, this package does little more than renew their cynicism since it reneges on promises made just two years ago when we told families to play by the rules, go to work instead of on welfare, and we will offset your payroll taxes so that you do not have to raise your children in poverty. Mr. President, I am not against the idea of tax cuts. In fact, I would support a limited tax cut for the most needy families and some relief from burdensome taxes for companies that need it. But when you look at this bill, while it was artfully crafted to appear to have something for everyone, it is really a farce. It is full of tax pork for the wealthy and goodies for those who do not really need it. On the surface, how can anyone oppose tax relief for families? The Republican rhetoric is, as always, good--tax relief for families, and help for companies to create jobs. It sounds so tempting to give hundreds of billions of dollars away, but when you look at what Republicans are reality doing, and how they are doing it, you say ``wait a minute.'' Their rhetoric is one thing, but reality is another. They say they are balancing the budget, but they will add nearly a trillion dollars to our national debt in the next seven years. They say the tax cut is ``paid-for'' by an economic dividend of balancing the budget; but the truth is, they are adding $224 billion to our accumulated debt over the next 7 years. In fact, if you add interest, the total is more like $268 billion. Republicans are borrowing money from the middle class they claim to be championing in order to give money away to their fat-cat friends. Think of it as a new credit card with a credit line of $1,000. Every month you take home $1,500 after taxes and spend $1,600. You can do that because you have the credit card. You are charging $100 every month to your credit line. Well, after 5 months, you owe the $500 you borrowed on your credit card, plus interest. Then you decide, you don't like spending more than you are making, so you force yourself to spend less. For the next 7 months, you bring your spending down from $1,600 a month to $1,585 a month, then $1,570 a month, then $1,570 a month, and so on until at the end of the year, you are spending $1,500 a month. You have a Balanced Budget. You are making $1,500 a month and spending $1,500 a month. Then you look at your balance you owe on your credit card, and guess what--you owe $800, plus interest. How did that happen? You went on a path to balance in June when you owed $500 plus interest, but in December you owe more than $800. It is because every month on the way to balance, you borrowed more to cover your over spending. You borrowed $85 dollars one month, $70 the next, $55 the month after that, and so on. That is what this bill does. Sure, it gets us to balance by 2002, but along the way, we are going to overspend what we take in by nearly $1 trillion. Every year between now and 2002 we spend more than we take in. We borrow more to pay for this tax cut. That is $1 trillion added to our accumulated debt. And of that $1 trillion added to the debt, $224 billion is this tax cut ($268 billion, if you add the interest). If we got rid of this tax cut, or reduced the tax cut down to size of the real economic dividend, our deficit every year would be less, and the accumulated debt, the amount the American people owe, would be less. This debate is about priorities. Do we want to run up the bill on all of us in order to give money to the wealthy to buy goodies? We are running up our national credit card so the richest Americans--those who earn more than $350,000 a year--get a tax cut of $5,600. Do we want to spend $40 billion on capital gains tax cuts for the richest Americans and recklessly slash health care for the most needy and the elderly? Do we want to cut taxes by more than $1.7 million on estates worth over $5 million by raising taxes on the working poor? Again, West Virginians have a basic sense of fairness. How can I tell them that families are helped, when the result of this whole bill will mean that poorest fifth of Americans would shoulder fully half of the program cuts with an average loss of nearly $2,500 per family in 2002. At the same time, the Treasury estimates that almost two thirds of the proposed tax breaks would go to the wealthiest fifth of the population, who would gain almost $1,400 per family. In fact, the top one percent of families--those with incomes greater than $350,000 per year, would get an average tax break of $5,600. The capital gains tax break will benefit taxpayers with incomes between $20,000 and $30,000 by about $5 on average. Those making more than $200,000 will receive an average cut of nearly $1,500. How is that fair? How can the authors of this bill look at themselves in the mirror, let alone look into the faces of the most needy in America, and say they are doing the right thing? I cannot go to town meetings in my state and tell West Virginians that I supported such an unbalanced, unfair deal. I could support tax cuts that were honestly paid for. I could support tax cuts that are fair. But I am not going to support tax cuts paid for by raising the money from those least able to pay. I even think we should consider giving some limited tax relief to American companies that need it. In fact, I am proud to be the author of a bill that helps capital intensive industries such as steel, chemicals and wood-paper compete in the international market place. That bill fixes something called the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) by changing the way companies calculate the value of their property. Unfortunately, even in this bill of tax goodies, and big corporate give-aways, the Republicans could not do it right, they only did a half measure. The problem these companies have is that under the AMT, the tax code does not recognize in any real-world way, how to depreciate their assets. Steel, chemicals, wood-paper, any capital intensive industry, where the costs are high and the margins are low, these companies need to change the length of time they have to depreciate their assets. This is known as lives. Under the current tax law, after 5 years, a US steel maker under AMT recovers only 37 percent on its investment in new plant and equipment, versus 58 percent in Japan, 81 percent in Germany, 90 percent in Korea, and 100 percent in Brazil. This is largely a result of the AMT. It is my strong hope that conferees will look at this with an understanding eye. I am hopeful that they will. When you look at how the AMT puts our companies in such a competitive disadvantage, I think the need for corrective action is clear. Another disturbing provision tucked into this package is the proposal to eliminate the 50 percent interest exclusion on loans to purchase employees stock ownership plans (ESOPs). As Governor of West Virginia, I worked closely with the workers of Weirton Steel to establish an ESOP that kept the mill open, and the community alive. Weirton officials question if they could have secured the financing necessary in the early 1980's to create this ESOP without this tax incentive. Weirton Steel is the largest private employer in West Virginia in my State. Despite the rocky roads that the American steel industry has faced, Weirton Steel has not only survived, it has invested almost half a billion dollars in modernization so that it will be internationally competitive into the next century--and it remains an ESOP with involved employee owners. There are other successful ESOPs in West Virginia, and I hope there will be more in future. We should not slam the door shut on such future ESOPs by eliminating the incentives for start-up loans, in my view. Mr. President, this legislation is nearly 2000 pages long--I shudder to think about other provisions tucked quietly into this bill. It was presented to the Senate on October 23, 1995, and [[Page S 16071]] we are expected to vote on the legislation with only four days of review. There has not been time to carefully analyze this massive legislation or to learn what is on each and every page--much less understand the complicated interactions of the policies and programs. I do know that on page 1851 there is a proposal that I cannot support. It is a secret deal in the Republican budget that fundamentally breaks the promise of lifetime health benefits to retired coal miners and their widows--nearly 30,000 of whom live in the State of West Virginia. More than 60,000 more older miners and their widows are living in almost every other State in this union. I am obligated to expose the secret and to call it what it is--a pay- off for a set of greedy corporate interests that will not stop until they have bled the miners' health trust fund of every last dollar needed to protect miners benefits. Republicans say they will restore the miners' trust fund--the miners' only real guarantee that their health care will be there for them when they need it. I am not willing to gamble with the health security of 92,000 miners and their widows. I cannot abide such a tawdry provision in this or any reconciliation package. I appeal to whatever sense of justice my Republican colleagues have. I ask them to give up this corporate pay-off before any more damage is done. This cruel little provision might have escaped the notice of many. In a package that gives away billions, this provision only deals with tens of million of dollars. But these millions mean security to the older miners and their widows. This small trust fund is all they have, and it stands between their health security and a peace of mind, and financial ruin and destitution when illness strikes these aging miners. This is a complicated issue with a long history, and I could go into excruciating detail. But the bottom line is that Republicans want to hand over the money that is keeping the retired miners' health trust fund solvent to a group of special interests represented by high priced lobbyists. As I have said earlier, I want my colleagues to think about the real families that could be truly hurt by this package. The day after the Finance Committee reported out their handiwork that demolishes the health security of more than 92,000 miners and their widows for the sake of a few of the biggest and most profitable companies in this country, I went back home to West Virginia. I went back to tell miners and their wives what happened. The miners I met with were reserved, as many miners are, especially older ones who have seen it all, strikes and cave-ins, shut-downs and lay-offs. They have learned to accept a lot in life. They have seen their coworkers killed, or mangled, or dismembered. They have suffered the loss of their own lungs and limbs. They do not have a lot to pass onto their families in temporal terms, but they have good hearts and an incomparable work ethic. They have the values they hold dear--their emphasis is on community and family and caring. And until the Senate Finance Committee action, they had their UMW health card to get their health benefits and knew that it would protect their wives when they died too hard and too soon. One miner who worked for decades in the mines told me starkly, ``We're worried to death.'' He said, ``Now it seems like the company is the one running the whole show. They want to do away with us when we were the ones that worked and built everything else.'' His question was this, ``What's going to happen to me if I lose my benefits?'' And he answered his own question with, ``They'll probably put me in my grave before my time.'' Another miner, characteristically, worried about his wife who is a diabetic. ``Gosh, if I had to buy her medicine, I do not know what would happen.'' Today retired miners' health benefits pay for prescription drug medication after they meet a modest deductible. Under this reconciliation package, on page 1851, we are taking away the health care security of these miners, and we are reneging on a promise made more than 40 years ago by President Truman and reaffirmed just 2 years ago and signed into law by an act of Congress. If this Senate and this society renege on this promise to a group of old frail miners, their wives and their widows, what are we worth? Does a promise have no meaning? Does a contract not matter? Can a law be repealed when it becomes inconvenient for a profitable, influential businesses? Promises do have meaning for me. When I was elected by the people of West Virginia, I made promises to West Virginians. I vowed to fight for their priorities and do my best to serve them and respond to their concerns. This reconciliation bill simply does not respond to the real needs of West Virginia families, or even West Virginia businesses. The Republican rhetoric is good, but the reality is that this bill will undermine health care for seniors, raise taxes on working families, and jeopardizes the health care for retired coal miners and their families. This is a harsh package that hurts real people, and I strongly oppose it. With this legislation, we are walking away from basic commitments to some of the most needy individuals in our society, and the debate over this package has saddened me greatly. We can, and we should, do better as public servants. I will vote no, and continue to fight against such unfair legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Nebraska and the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I find it noteworthy that sometime very recently all of a sudden we get 46 pages of actual legislative language, the manager's amendment. I guess we should be grateful for small deeds. The amendment magically comes up with about $10 billion. We believe there is a very good chance that comes from Social Security, which is most interesting, for more Medicare aid, more Medicaid money, parcels it out to various health care institutions, HMO's, et cetera. I think there are a number of reasons to reject this bill, which will be my recommendation. One, to protest what is underneath this amendment, a bill that will cut Medicare and Medicaid by unprecedented amounts of money. No last-minute amendments by the managers are going to soften the blow of this combination of Medicaid and Medicare cuts put together. It is a stunning--a stunning--cut. I think we have to question how all of a sudden this new money appeared. I suspect it came from Social Security. But we will hear more about that. HMO's, nursing homes, got money. Different people were accommodated. We had that process a little bit in the House, and it was not generally given very high marks. I find it, again, amazing that money is falling from the sky to satisfy different folks, and yet these are the same folks who said $270 billion in cuts for Medicare, for example, was the only possible way to save Medicare. So before yielding to three other Senators, I will say, where did all this money come from, and is it from Social Security, for example? Or is it from some other place? There is a very bizarre formula for Medicaid in which I think the Republican States somehow end up doing much better than the Democratic States, but I may be wrong on that. Senator Graham will speak on that. Also, the amendment weakens the nursing home standards, a subject which is incredibly important to me. The Senator from Arkansas will speak on that subject. At this point, with the permission of the Senator from Nebraska, I suggest that we go to the Senator from Arkansas, if that is all right with the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Twelve years and under to have standards for their health benefit packages.