[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 11 (Tuesday, February 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     CONGRATULATING DR. REISCHAUER

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will not be long. I see other Senators 
might want to be recognized.
  I rise today, I say to the Senate and my fellow Senators, to 
congratulate a very, very courageous employee of the U.S. Government, 
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Dr. Reischauer. 
Frankly, he has been under enormous pressure on the issue of whether 
the President's health care plan created a very large Government 
operation, a new large Government program, fueled by taxes, spent by an 
instrumentality of the Government, or not. For that, indeed, was the 
issue.
  The issue is whether saying to the employers of America: You will 
pay, from payroll of your employees, somewhere between 3.5 and 7.9 
percent, depending upon what the regional alliances say you owe. 
However, you will all get the same coverage. Clearly indicating we are 
using money from different employers differently: Some to buy theirs, 
some to pay for part of others, and run all the money through an 
alliance which is a total creature of the Federal Government, which 
does not exist today, which will grow up in the sovereign States like 
mushrooms and all of a sudden these very large instrumentalities of the 
Government--agencies, bureaucracies--will be running the health care 
system.
  Frankly, that was the issue, although today it is couched in whether 
or not the planned dates provided for in the President's program on 
employers to pay a portion of payroll to a regional alliance, whether 
that was a receipt to the Government or a premium for insurance.
  For those who try to play on the word ``receipt'' and say that 
receipt is not a tax, let me suggest they look at the budget. We call 
taxes receipts to the Government. So he was using the exact correct 
parlance of the budget in saying it is a receipt to the Government, all 
of it, every penny of it. And that is a very large new federally run 
program.
  That is the conclusion that the CBO came to in reading the 
President's proposals. That is $1.4 trillion, that will be mandated, 
much of which is now voluntary--some is paid in different ways, some by 
different kinds of insurance--but that $1.4 trillion will be under the 
control of what they choose to call the sovereign Government of the 
United States.
  Frankly, I am only going to quote one paragraph:

       CBO concludes that the plan would establish both a Federal 
     entitlement to health benefits and a system of mandatory 
     payments to finance those benefits and represents an exercise 
     of sovereign power. Therefore CBO believes that the financial 
     transactions of the health alliances should be included in 
     the Federal Government's accounts and the premiums should be 
     shown as Government receipts rather than as offsets to 
     spending.

  I repeat what the Republican leader said. I rise to state this 
because I thought it all along. I argued it. I urged it. I told those 
representing the White House this is how it ought to be treated, not 
because I do not want a health care reform program--I do. This just 
points out there has to be a better way than having the U.S. Government 
essentially operate a new program of this size through regional 
alliances which we create but somehow or another we would like to call 
``not government.''
  Lastly, again, not by way of saying that I have all the answers, 
because I think every program should be looked at, everyone's 
proposals. But essentially I have been saying since the very inception 
of the President's first budget, that if you do not get health care 
under control, the deficit goes back through the roof. As a matter of 
fact, the President has been saying it. In fact, recently he said if 
you do not get health care costs under control, you cannot get the 
deficit under control.
  I had difficulty understanding that, Mr. President, because I did not 
understand how getting health care under control, costwise, turning 
around and spending under four new programs, which are now called 
entitlements, which I perceive would cost more than we could ever save, 
I did not understand how we could have deficit reduction.
  I still do not, and I am here to tell you I did not when the 
President released his budget yesterday. I did not when he spoke in 
Houston yesterday, but what I could say is it cannot be.
  But now the CBO says by the year 2000 you will spend more under the 
new health care program, the new entitlements, the three that are going 
to be in there, plus the subsidy to take care of the uninsured for 
universal coverage, you will pay more than you will save if you get 
Medicare and Medicaid under control and more than the taxes you are 
going to get from the new add-on to cigarettes.
  I am not here saying we cannot put a program together. Not at all. I 
am merely suggesting we just got out of the frying pan and are getting 
the deficit under control. The biggest thing we keep finding out is 
that we do not know how to estimate the cost of health care programs 
that the Government sponsors and delivers and manages and does the 
books for--Medicare and Medicaid. I am not sure we know how to keep the 
four new ones under control that are in the President's budget.
  So I was vindicated at least to the extent that CBO says you will not 
save any money, you will spend $77 billion more, not save $59 billion. 
So I think there is a $133 billion or $135 billion error in the 
estimating. I repeat what our Republican leader said, that may be too 
low.
  So I think we ought to walk into this rather than have a new 
entitlement commission, that our friend standing on the floor is going 
to cochair, saying how do we get entitlements under control. I do not 
expect him to respond at this point. He wants to speak on something 
else, perhaps, but he is saying unless we get some entitlements under 
control, he is willing to say let us meet and do it.
  Now we have CBO saying the new entitlements under the President's 
suggested health care bill will, of themselves, add $70 billion to the 
deficit over the next 5 years. I repeat, I think those numbers are all 
too low. The President's first one, CBO's second one, and I am not all 
sure we know how to save that money in Medicare and Medicaid which we 
must save first in order to pay for these programs.
  I yield the floor
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 30 seconds?
  During my short hospital stay several issues of importance to Alaska 
came up in relation to the Education 2000 bill. First, I'd like to 
thank the distinguished managers of the bill, Senator Kennedy and 
Senator Kassebaum, for offering an amendment on my behalf authorizing 
Alaska Natives to participate in education reform efforts.
  At my request, Senators Harkin and Specter included $200,000 for that 
purpose in the fiscal year 1994 Labor/Health appropriations bill. 
However, I was informed earlier this month that the Department of 
Education would not spend the money because it did not believe it had 
the authority. This amendment grants that legal authority.
  Under the original version of the Education 2000 bill, only Indians 
from the lower 48 States were eligible for grant moneys under the 
Indian set-aside. The amendment the managers offered will now treat 
Alaska Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts on the same basis as Indians in the 
lower 48.
  Last Thursday Senator Helms offered an amendment which was later 
modified to guarantee the right of schoolchildren to pray in school if 
they so choose--a right protected under the first amendment of the 
Constitution.
  Many of the problems we face in this country--domestic violence, drug 
abuse, crack babies, random shootings, child abuse--are a result of the 
decay in the moral fabric of our families and communities.
  Not penalizing schools which allow children to pray is a small but 
important first step in addressing these problems. Letting children 
pray will help reduce violence in our society more than any gun control 
or antipoverty program could ever do.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor 
to Senator Helms' amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.

                          ____________________