[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.
____________________