Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment.

If I may, I'd like to respond to a couple of very important points that my colleague from Illinois made. I was 1 of 11 who voted against this legislation. I voted against it not because of any degree of clairvoyance I might have enjoyed, but largely due to the way in which the seniors in my State responded to the legislation. I wrote to some 50,000 of them. I gave them a synopsis of the legislation, as I knew it, and a breakdown of what the costs were going to be for the coverage they were going to receive. By a 4-to-1 majority, they responded with a strong negative.

Now, after they have become aware of exactly what is involved with this legislation, my mail is now running 500 to 1.

Let me also point out to my friend from Illinois that we can finance this bill, this catastrophic illness coverage. We can finance the key aspects of this bill, and we can do it with the present increase that we have already made in Medicare premiums, by stripping away all of the unnecessary parts of this bill that were basically added to it. This issue highlights what I view as the most unpleasant aspect of how the legislative process works. This act went from a good idea, to provide senior catastrophic illness with some public sector protection from the financial ravages of illnesses to a bill with every imaginable benefit. All of the benefits is this act would be nice to have, but the inclusion of some have needlessly sent the cost of health care right out of sight.

Let me point this out: Seniors in America--as a group--do not resent paying for care that they receive. But seniors in America only want to pay for those benefits which they think they need. This is an important point to recognize some are accusing seniors in this country of just being selfish--that they do not want to pay for the benefits they receive. That they would rather lay the expense of this on the back of working men and women. That is just not the case, Mr. President. Seniors only want to pay for benefits which they feel they need, not superfluous benefits. While some of these benefits, such as prescription drugs and others, may be nice to have they have made this bill indeed unacceptable to an overwhelming majority of older Americans.

The other point I think needs to be made here is that, by financing this legislation to the hilt and making it such an incredibly expensive package, we have foreclosed the likelihood of addressing what is the real concern of seniors in America today and what should be our real concern. It was mentioned by my colleague, the Senator from Illinois: Long-term care.

Believe it or not, Mr. President, many seniors believe that the adoption of the `Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988' means they now have long-term care protection. This is because, to them, that is the catastrophe in their lives. That is the catastrophe, indeed, when we are talking about expenses of $22,000 to $35,000 per year for the cost of nursing home stay. Yet the cost of private long-term care insurance runs from $1,200-5,000 a year, depending on one's age.

Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Illinois. We have an obligation to the seniors of this country to provide them with some public sector protection from the expense of long-term care. I do not see, though, how we are going to do it when we have enacted a piece of legislation which basically wrings them dry. And worse, when we are talking about premiums of up to $800 to $1,000 per year per person for this coverage. Let me also thank my friend from Texas, for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect, and indeed, I do not envy him for his task as chairman of the Finance Committee. He is faced with difficult decisions on a daily basis, and it is easy for people like me to criticize his decisions without coming up with a viable option, which I am guilty of from time to time, I must admit.

I appreciate my colleague from Texas agreeing to hold hearings on this issue. I think it is important that we revisit the act, given the fire-storm it has created. I also hope that if he would have the opportunity, that we could possibly have a hearing outside of Washington, DC, because I believe that seniors in this country need to be heard on this issue about which they are obviously extremely agitated. I thank my colleague from Texas for agreeing to hold hearings.

Mr. President, recently there was a meeting of a local AARP chapter in my State. As you know, AARP was one of the prime movers of this legislation. I suggest that a case could be made that if it had not been for the American Association of Retired Persons, this legislation would not have become reality. At this meeting, a film produced to defend the act was shown. I believe it was made and produced by AARP. After a 2-hour discussion, the president of the chapter called on the 200 or so members present to raise their hands if they supported the act. Only two hands went up.

As the act moved through Congress, as we know, it changed dramatically. One of the ways it changed was that it became mandatory. As we know, the Senate bill was optional. What started out as a proposal to provide protection of long-term hospitalizations, for only a small increase in Medicare premiums, ended up as an expansive and expensive package. And, with the exception of the spousal impoverishment benefit, it duplicates much of the coverage currently available in the private sector. And, it mandates that seniors participate without regard to whether they want or need the coverage.

I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to what this act has done to retired Federal employees and retired members of the military. It is really almost criminal.

Retired members of the military and retired Federal employees served and worked their entire lives to get the benefits they are now being forced to pay for. I can understand their anger and sense of betrayal. I would like to remind my colleagues that the version we passed and sent to conference with the House was optional. The final version was not.

The enormous cost to stay in a nursing home is what bothers senior citizens, and it is indeed the critical issue that I think we are going to have to address in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I believe we have the responsibility to go back and review the act given the fact that we adopted this act and required seniors to participate in the financing. It is with the goal in mind of the Finance Committee revisiting this act that led me to offer S. 335, the `Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Revision Act of 1989' on February 2.

Mr. President, S. 335 would delay, for a year, implementation of all provisions in the act that have not already been implemented (including the supplemental premium), with the exception of the spousal impoverishment protection. Thus, the long-term hospitalization, skilled nursing facility, and spousal impoverishment benefits would be protected during this 1-year period and implemented.

The cost of these provisions would be borne by the already flat $4 a month add-on to Medicare premiums.

This 1-year time period would afford Congress the opportunity to reexamine, through public hearings, the present law to assess whether it truly meets the real catastrophic illness protection needs of our Nation's seniors.

It would make it possible to make any changes that the hearings indicate ought to be made.

Let me point out again, no, let me emphasize, spousal impoverishment, skilled nursing, and long-term hospitalization would be protected in my bill, while the implementation of all of the other benefits that were larded onto it would be delayed. This legislation is unique. Among those bills that have been offered with a goal in mind of reexamining the act, all the others establish commissions.

Mr. President, I am tired of establishing commissions. I think the American people are tired of commissions. I think the American people expect their elected representatives to address these crucial issues themselves, without abrogating their authority and their responsibility to commissions.

This legislation has received bipartisan support in Congress and has received the endorsement of the Coalition for Affordable Health Care, a conglomeration of some 33 interest groups spanning the entire political spectrum--from Gray Panther chapters, the National Association of the Retired Federal Employees, to the Retired Officers Association. I must admit, Mr. President, those are strange bedfellows, but obviously this issue has joined together a wide spectrum and a broad spectrum of American society

An identical companion bill was introduced in the House several weeks ago by Congressmen DeFazio and Tauke.

So, Mr. President, I am fully on record as supporting the notion that we ought to have public hearings to review the act. As such, I am strongly supporting my friend from Oklahoma on his sense of the Senate resolution. I suggest this is only the first step, and I commend the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for agreeing to hold hearings to reexamine the act.

I hope in doing so, the hearings will examine both the act's financing and its benefits. In addition, I hope the committee will consider holding hearings outside of Washington. When the hearings are held, I hope they will also examine bills such as S. 335.

Mr. President, in closing, I would like to again emphasize--seniors in America are not afraid to pay the bill for benefits they believe are necessary. They are understandably reluctant, and in fact, angered, at having to pay for benefits that they do not believe are necessary. Two, they already have insurance which covers such eventualities. Three, because of their work, and the benefits provided by their employer as a condition of employment, many already have some protection from catastrophic illness, which is duplicated by this act at their expense.

Mr. President, we must provide some public sector catastrophic health care protection to senior citizens. But, it should probably be limited, not duplicative, and certainly protect those who are low income. Certainly, we ought to provide spousal impoverishment protection to all seniors.

We can do this, Mr. President, but we do not have to do it at the price of this legislation, which is unfortunately going to impoverish Americans, rather than help them. And, indeed, it ignores the crucial concern to seniors--the need for protection from long-term care expenses, which is indeed the catastrophe that may face us all. In fact, over 50 percent of us will confront a need for long-term care in our lifetimes, with 20 percent of us needing nursing home care.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma. I urge my colleagues to support this sense of the Senate resolution and respond to the outcry that is out there across this country concerning the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988. I believe, the seniors feelings regarding this act are justified, especially given the act's unjustified expense and scope.

I yield the floor.