[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record the remarks of the Republican leader, Senator Dole, in 
response to the State of the Union last night.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              State of the Union: The Republican Response

                         (Remarks by Bob Dole)

       Good evening. I'm Bob Dole, Senate Republican Leader.
       Tonight I'm speaking for Congressional Republicans, for 
     Republican governors, state legislators, mayors, and other 
     elected officials.
       And I hope for you--if you believe, as we do, that 
     America's taxes should be lower, that the government should 
     spend less; that the people, not the government should 
     control more; and that our armed forces must be strong.
       Here in Congress, we are the minority party. The Democrats 
     have many more votes than we do in both the House and the 
     Senate.
       So when the President spoke tonight, he knew that whatever 
     he really wants, he stands a good chance of getting, because 
     most Democrats will vote with him.
       And when Republicans believe President Clinton is moving 
     America in the right direction--as he did with the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement--then he can count on our votes 
     and our cooperation, too.


                  Wrong Fork in the road: health care

       But far more often than not, the President and his Democrat 
     majority have taken what we believe is the wrong fork in the 
     road--not just on one or two matters of policy, but on their 
     entire approach to government.

                     Health care is a good example

       The President and Mrs. Clinton deserve credit for starting 
     the debate. It has been very helpful. Now, nearly a year 
     later, we better understand this important issue.
       We know that America has the best health care system in the 
     world; that people from every corner of the globe come here 
     when they need the very best treatment; and that our goal 
     should be to ensure that every American has access to this 
     system.


                 massive overdose of government control

       Of course, there are Americans with a sick child or sick 
     parent in real need, both in rural and urban America. Our 
     country has health care problems, but no health care crisis.
       But we will have a crisis if we take the President's 
     medicine--a massive overdose of government control.

                              How massive?

       My colleague, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, has 
     prepared a chart of what the health care bureaucracy would 
     look like under the President's plan.
       It's a big chart, containing 207 boxes. It would take a 
     long time to explain--if I fully understood it, myself.
       But let me point out some of the new bureaucracies created 
     under the President's plan.
       Way up here is something called the ``National Health 
     Board.'' Over here is an ``Advisory Commission on Regional 
     Variations of Health Expenditures.'' And here's the 
     ``National Institute for Health Care Workforce Development.''
       You and I are way down here, somewhere.
       The President's idea is to put a mountain of bureaucrats 
     between you and your doctor.
       For example, if you or a family member want to receive care 
     from a specialist or a clinic outside of your own state, then 
     you probably can't do it without asking for approval.
       And, under his plan, information about your health and your 
     treatment can be sent to a national data bank without your 
     approval. That's a compromise of privacy none of us can 
     accept.
       Those are just a few examples--there are many more. 
     Clearly, the President is asking you to trust the government 
     more than you trust your doctor and yourselves, with your 
     lives and the lives of your loved ones.
       More cost. Less choice. More taxes. Less quality. More 
     government control. Less control for you and your family. 
     That's what the President's government-run plan is likely to 
     give you.


                 commonsense health care solutions now

       We can fix our most pressing problems without performing a 
     triple bypass operation on our health care system.
       We can do it without the estimated trillion dollar budget 
     shortfall the Clinton plan would create over the next six 
     years.
       And we can do it now.
       Republicans--and I believe many Democracts--are ready to 
     vote for legislation containing common-sense solutions. 
     Solutions like:
       Guaranteeing uninterrupted coverage to everyone who is 
     currently insured, even if you leave or lose your job, and
       Guaranteeing that your coverage cannot be denied because of 
     a serious illness or a pre-existing condition.
       Giving relief to small businesses by allowing them to join 
     together to buy insurance.
       Giving individuals who buy their own insurance a 100 
     percent tax deduction.
       Changing the law to allow you to open your own medical 
     savings accounts--or to buy ``medical IRA's.''
       Helping uninsured low-income Americans pay for coverage 
     through tax credits or vouchers.
       And, finally, cutting the government red tape, and 
     reforming medical malpractice laws that make our health care 
     system so expensive.
       Debate on the President's massive and complex program will 
     continue for most of the year. But the changes just mentioned 
     can be made now. So, why wait? Why not act to put you and 
     your family in control of your health care right now?


                                 Crime

       This evening, the President also spoke at length about 
     crime. And he's right--we all must take responsibility as 
     individuals.
       After years of debate, many Democrats are joining 
     Republicans behind this view: Criminals are not the victims 
     of society--society is the victim of criminals * * * and that 
     the best way to make America's streets, schools, and homes 
     safer is to put violent criminals in jail and to keep them 
     there.
       And most provisions of this bill which the Senate passed 
     last November, do just that. Let me give you just a few 
     examples.
       Life imprisonment for those convicted of three violent 
     felonies--call it, ``three strikes and you're in, for life.''
       Tough mandatory sentences for those who use a gun in the 
     commission of a crime.
       Violent juveniles treated as adults when they use a gun.


            Padlock the revolving door: truth-in-sentencing

       As you know, just putting criminals behind bars is not 
     enough.
       There is a big second step. And that's padlocking the 
     revolving door--keeping violent criminals in jail for their 
     entire sentence. A twenty year sentence should mean just 
     that--20 years or darn close to it. Not five, not ten, not 
     even fifteen.
       So this bill also would authorize 10 new regional federal 
     prisons. Before states can send their violent criminals to 
     those prisons, they must adopt ``truth in sentencing'' laws. 
     In other words, if you do the crime, you really do the time.
       The Senate has passed tough crime bills before. But every 
     time we do, liberal Congressional Democrats remove the tough 
     provisions.
       That must not happen again.


                          credibility on crime

       Republicans want President Clinton to sign the toughest 
     bill possible--and I've got the toughest bill around in my 
     hand right now.
       The President used tough language tonight--and that's good. 
     But will he act on it?
       Will he insist on the tough provisions, like ten new 
     regional prisons, like ``truth in sentencing,'' like tough 
     mandatory sentences for using a gun; and the death penalty 
     for drug kingpins?
       Unfortunately, the Administration has damaged its 
     credibility on the crime issue by cutting the federal prison 
     construction budget by 20 percent, and by the 94 percent cut 
     in the Drug Czar's office.
       And, yes, the talk in the administration of legalized drugs 
     doesn't help much, either.


                      actions different than words

       Now, many people are confused when the President's actions 
     appear different than his words.
       For example, the President talks about education. But he 
     opposes school choice, which could give parents more control 
     over the education of their children.
       He promised to ``end welfare as we know it,'' yet everyone 
     waits for his proposal. In the meantime, Republicans here in 
     Congress and Republican Governors across the nation are 
     fighting for changes that make work, self-sufficiency, and 
     reducing illegitimacy top priorities.
       The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet, he and 
     his party imposed the largest tax increase in American 
     history.
       This $255 billion increase was opposed by every Republican 
     in the House and Senate.


                   economic recovery and the deficit

       We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic 
     recovery and declining interest rates he inherited. The two-
     year mark--coming at the end of this year--is when the 
     economy usually starts to feel the results of a new 
     Administration's policies.
       Instead of stifling growth and expansion through higher 
     taxes and increased government regulation, Republicans would 
     take America in a different direction. We can do that through 
     alternatives that reward risk-taking and the creation of new 
     jobs, and that give our small business men and women relief 
     from the heavy-hand of government.
       The President told you tonight that the deficit is 
     projected to decrease next year. And that's true. After all, 
     the largest tax increase in American history would decrease 
     any deficit temporarily.
       But, in the words of Paul Harvey, ``Now you're going to 
     hear the rest of the story.''
       Under his budget, government spending will increase by at 
     least $343 billion in the next five years, and, in the same 
     time period, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office 
     projects that $1 trillion will be added to our national debt.


                           national security

       The one place the President has cut drastically is 
     precisely the wrong place--national security--slashed to the 
     lowest levels since before Pearl Harbor.
       History tells us, and many of us know first-hand, that 
     America cannot afford to have a hollow military. Nor can we 
     afford to let the United Nations dictate what is in America's 
     national interest.


                america's enduring mission of leadership

       I want to close by talking about America--the greatest 
     country in the world.
       I believe America has an enduring mission--a mission of 
     leadership.
       Fifty years ago, when Hitler's tyranny was on the march, it 
     was only because of strong American leadership that freedom 
     was preserved.
       In the Cold War, for millions behind the Iron Curtain, and 
     in the many nations that depended on us to protect them, it 
     was, again, only because of strong American leadership that 
     freedom prevailed.
       And now, as countries that were tyrannies learn democracy, 
     as people learn about free markets where a short time ago 
     buying and selling without the state's permission was 
     illegal, the world again wants and needs strong American 
     leadership, so that freedom will endure.
       Many times over the past few years, right here in this 
     office, I've met with representatives from the new emerging 
     democracies. Some were leaders. Some were ordinary citizens. 
     Some had been in jail for many years. And they all told me 
     about the same thing. They all said that ``We want to be like 
     America.''
       In this great, good, and generous nation, the American 
     mission endures, here at home, and around the world.
       We are its stewards.
       It is up to us to ensure that, wherever the road divides, 
     America takes the right path--remains true to its mission of 
     leadership, and remains the light and hope of humanity.
       Thank you, and to the people of Southern California, please 
     know that all of us in Washington will be working with 
     Governor Wilson and your Congressional delegation to provide 
     the help you need. Good night.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, the remarks of the President in the State 
of the Union address last night were excellent remarks that summarized 
some of the concerns that many of us had relative to the issues raised 
last night by the President. The President, of course, did make and 
deliver a well prepared and excellent State of the Union as to style 
and presentation. He is a gentleman who has on many occasions shown us 
that he has the capacity to draw forth many ideas and concepts in 
addressing the people of this country through the forum of a joint 
session of the Congress.
  But I will say this about the President's speech, because I think it 
needs to be said; that is, that it had with it a large amount of irony. 
If you look at what he is suggesting in a number of policy areas, for 
example in the area of health care, where he has suggested that we 
essentially nationalize the system and allow it to be dominated by the 
Federal Government; in the area of education, where his program is one 
of calling upon the creation of an outline of a standard and curriculum 
which would be designed here at the Federal level and which will 
inevitably be forced upon local communities and States, either through 
litigation or through direct regulatory activity as part of the funding 
mechanisms and things like chapter 1; in the area of job training, 
where he is suggesting that we basically have a Federal make-work job 
program structured again along the concepts which were once before seen 
in this country, the CETA proposals--all of these ideas which he is 
putting on the table and which he has put on the table last night in 
the phraseology which was really superbly framed, really, in substance, 
are inconsistent and contradictory to the basic theme of his speech, 
which was that we, as a nation, in order to address core issues which 
concern us, such as crime, should take more individual responsibility 
and should have more of an awareness of the need of individuals to care 
for themselves and be responsible for themselves and to be concerned 
about this fellow citizens.
  In fact, it is totally ironic that in the major new initiative that 
he discussed last night, which was the welfare reform program, he is 
suggesting that we reform a system, the welfare system, which has 
broken down as a result of the excesses of the Federal Government in 
the area of demanding centralized control over a system. He is 
suggesting that that system, which is broken, should be fixed by giving 
more flexibility to the States and by requiring more individual 
initiative in the area of the individuals receiving the benefits. But 
at the same time, he is suggesting that reform for that system--which 
is so fundamentally flawed--he is suggesting taking the exact concepts 
which created the flawed system of welfare and applying them to health 
care, applying them to education, and applying them to job training.
  There is clearly an inconsistency and an irony in that. Thus, as you 
look at the phrasing of the speech, it was superb, and the presentation 
was superb. But the substance of the speech is inconsistent and 
contradictory.
  It is especially inconsistent in the area of health care.
  This is obviously going to be one of the primary concerns as we 
address this coming legislative session, and we all know that the 
health care delivery system in this country needs some significant 
improvement.
  But what is being proposed by this administration is not improvement 
but it is replacement. It is taking the system which we presently have, 
and if you were to compare it, for example, to an automobile instead of 
saying, well, it needs a new engine or needs a new muffler or needs a 
new drive shaft, what they are saying is we need a brand new, entirely 
different vehicle to operate.
  The vehicle that is being proposed here is a vehicle that is totally 
dominated by the Federal Government. The structure of the proposal 
brought forth by this administration, Mrs. Clinton, and the President 
is one which would essentially lead to a nationalization of the health 
care industry.
  Why is that? Well, it is very simple. There are two entities put in 
place here which dominate up and down the health care arena, all the 
activity in the arena--the National Health Board and a global pricing 
mechanism which the National Health Board has as its authority to 
exercise under the proposal which is in the Clinton plan.
  The National Health Board will essentially be a regulatory agency 
which will give the States all the flexibility to do whatever the 
National Health Board decides should be done. And in giving the States 
that type of flexibility, it will assure the compliance occurs in the 
area of the delivery function of health care through a global pricing 
mechanism which is nothing more than a waterfall of price controls.
  It becomes trickle-down health care and, as a very practical matter, 
will inevitably lead, as it has in countries like Canada and England, 
to a significant drop in quality and rationing. That, of course, is 
what we should not have happen in reforming our health care system.
  There are reforms which have been proposed by a number of Members in 
this body, both Republican and Democratic Members, which we all agree 
on today and which could be passed today and which fundamentally 
improve the health care system and which would address the primary 
concerns which the President has and I have and which most Americans 
have, which is that the people who need health care can get health care 
coverage, that people are not barred from health care as a result of a 
preexisting condition, that the health care system does not find itself 
being charged by insurance companies which try to keep those people 
working in industries which may be less healthy out of the system or 
force them to pay more, that we dropped, have a system where doctors 
are practicing defensive medicine because of fears about malpractice 
lawsuits and we allow the technologies and the ideas which are booming 
in the health care area and which are helping people and which are 
curing disease to continue to expand and grow through addressing the 
antitrust laws.
  All of those issues have already been agreed to by a majority of both 
Houses of the Congress and could be passed today and would 
fundamentally improve the health care system. But this administration, 
rather than seeking to take that sort of approach, has decided no, we 
are not going to do that; instead we are going to nationalize the 
system and create everyone as a dependent of a small board here in 
Washington.
  Is that transferring to the individual responsibility? Is that 
responding to the health care crisis the way that he has proposed that 
we respond to the health care crisis? No, it is the just the opposite. 
The same can be said for education.
  The education proposal of this administration called Goal 2000, which 
has a very nice, innocuous name, is essentially a proposal which says 
we, the Federal Government, know better how to manage education than 
you, the local communities, know how to manage education, than you, the 
parents, know how to manage education. We are going to design a 
national curriculum for you now. It is voluntary. Of course, it is 
voluntary. But just in case you decide you do not want it, we are going 
to structure it in a way where one of our local community groups or 
your State groups or maybe your national group can come in and sue you 
and make you force you to comply with it.
  Alternatively, if that does not work, we may make more Federal funds 
dependent on your complying with these curriculum standards or other 
standards which we design here in Washington.
  Once again the Federal Government becomes the dominant force to force 
more dependency. Is that consistent with the welfare reform package 
which is being proposed? No, it is totally inconsistent. The welfare 
package which is being proposed is stressing flexibility at the local 
level, allowing the local States to make some decisions on how they 
structure the welfare programs and improve their welfare programs and 
requiring that individuals take responsibility for themselves. But in 
the education arena, it becomes the Federal Government dominating the 
arena and individuals become dependents of the Federal largess or the 
Federal kindness or the Federal Government regulations, whichever you 
wish to choose.
  The same is true in the jobs training program. So there is  this 
dramatic inconsistent step in the substance of the speech, and I regret 
that it has not really been noted. I listened to some of the 
commentators last night, and I appreciate the fact that they have found 
the speech attractive and entertaining and well delivered, and they 
referred to it on occasion as being almost Reaganese.

  I call it ironic because I recall the comments on the Reagan 
speeches. I did not hear such when the President spoke from people like 
Bryant Gumbel and Peter Jennings. It seems to me he was Reaganized in 
their view of President Reagan at the time he actually delivered the 
speeches but now they appear to be willing to give this President the 
status of having given this Reaganese-type of speech in the style. That 
is true. It was brilliantly delivered and as I said the phraseology was 
suburb. The substance was inconsistent.
  And I hope that as we move forward in this next legislative session 
that that part of the speech which talked about individual 
responsibility, that talked about giving States flexibility, that 
talked about the need to reform the way we approach Government in this 
country and allow the people of this country to once again take control 
of their Government and to have the capacity to make decisions without 
being told how to do things by their Government will be the theme that 
is dominant and that we will not see ourselves pushed further down the 
road toward a centralized bureaucratic type of society which has been 
designed for us in the health care proposals, in the education 
proposals, and in the job proposals which are presently pending from 
this administration.
  At this time, I yield to the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Wallop, such 
time as he may desire under the previous order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Let me say that he has put his finger precisely on what was wrong and 
what was not commented upon by the press on the President's speech last 
night, and that is the internal inconsistency.
  It was a formula speech, beautifully delivered, with well phrased 
portions which were designed to appeal to the American public which had 
been thoroughly polled.
  But, Madam President, one of the things that was very interesting to 
this Senator when he was musing on the fact that the symbol of America 
used to be Uncle Sam was a benign figure that sort of laid off in the 
country with the striped hat and the sense of patriotism but not a 
sense of involvement unless it was something like war.
  Now the symbol has become not Uncle Sam but great Aunt Nanny. The 
Federal Government will do everything for everyone. We will all be 
dependents of that Government, make no mistake about it, and the one 
veto threat the President promised last night was ``give me socialism 
or I will give you a veto. Nationalize health care or I will veto it.''
  He did say that he would not tolerate a further reduction in defense, 
but he did not promise to veto that.
  On the issue of welfare reform, which he campaigned on, he was going 
to change welfare as we know it. Last year in his State of the Union 
speech, he was going to change welfare as we know it. He has yet to 
produce a recommended welfare reform. But during the year just past, 
this administration's addressing of the welfare problems that Americans 
have identified is guess what? To eliminate the work required for AFDC, 
to waive it.
  The President told us all Americans, that Government employees, 
Members of Congress all have this wonderful generous health care that 
we have been provided by our employers, the public, and that is what 
the public wants.
  Madam President, what the President did not say is in the health plan 
that they proposed Government employees are exempt because they do not 
want to be part of the program that the President has proposed. It was 
a bit fraudulent to tell the American people on the one hand that all 
he wanted to do was to give them what the Government employees wanted 
and then tell the Government employees ``I promised not to give you 
what I am going to give to the American people.''
  On the issue of crime, Madam President, the only thing that happened 
last year was the Brady bill, which will do nothing for crime--will do 
a lot for symbolism--and cutting the budget for prison construction, 
which will do a lot for crime, nothing to crime.
  Madam President, we talk about family. This is a button that 
Americans care deeply about and was well pushed by the President. But 
keep in mind the performance of his administration has been to have his 
Attorney General fight the Congress, the Senate, the previous 
administration and the law to see to it that child pornographers are 
not judged so harshly as they have been the year before. Is that the 
way we go about protecting America's families?
  Madam President, I hope during the year--and I agree with the Senator 
from New Hampshire--that we can address the real problems that America 
has, but we are not going to address those problems by gathering them 
all into the bosom of Washington and dictating to every family, every 
small village, town and city, every county and State, just precisely 
how Washington wants it solved.
  And that was the call of the speech last night. It was a call to arm 
the Government against the States, against the communities, against the 
individuals of America, being told how to behave. Actively serve your 
Government. Your Government no longer serves you. Your Government will 
be in charge.
  Madam President, I do not think that is what the American people 
wish. I do not think that is what the American people are going to get. 
I do think that is what the fight this year will be all about.
  Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Oregon such time as he 
may choose.
  Mr. PACKWOOD addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.

                          ____________________