[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] HEALTH SECURITY ACT Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this afternoon, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, the Congressional Budget Office submitted its detailed views on President Clinton's Health Security Act. CBO is usually a quiet place, but in recent months it has been the quiet at the center of the storm, as all sides in the health care debate have awaited CBO's analysis of President Clinton's Health Security Act. Now, CBO's verdict is in, and after all the ideological smoke dissipates, it will be clear that CBO's analysis is a solid vote of confidence in the administration's plan. The plan is sound economically. The numbers add up. The CBO analysis concludes that the plan will provide health security for all Americans, and bring health care costs under control. No reputable study has concluded that any of the opponents' plans will reach those goals--not the Cooper plan, and certainly not any of the Republican plans. There is a health care crisis today because too many families have no insurance and because health care costs are out of control. The President's plan deals effectively with these two basic issues. It guarantees coverage for every American. And it brings health care costs under control. It means that the economy will grow, our living standards will improve, and America will be able to compete more effectively in the international marketplace. The CBO report specifically confirms that the long-term effect of the President's plan will be to reduce the Federal deficit. While there are differences between the OMB estimates and the CBO estimates, there is broad and welcome agreement by both budget agencies that the President's plan can be paid for by savings in the current system. The differences between the estimates are small, as the CBO analysis itself states. With further refinements in the cost data, the differences will be reduced. Only minor adjustments are needed in the program to assure that there is no increase in the deficit, even in the early years of the program. For example, one significant difference between the OMB and CBO is the CBO believes employers will be able to manipulate the system to achieve greater savings than they are entitled to. By improving the enforcement mechanisms in the bill, that gamesmanship can be reduced or eliminated. On the technical issue of budget treatment, CBO has been careful to describe the premium payments as receipts, not taxes. In asserting that these premiums should be part of the Federal budget, I believe that CBO is wrong. Premiums under the Health Security Act are paid to private insurance companies, not to the Federal Government. Never before has money not paid to the Government and not spent by the Government been included in the budget. The requirement that individuals and businesses contribute to the cost of private health insurance coverage is no different than the requirement to pay a minimum wage or to purchase auto insurance if you drive a car. None of these transactions are considered to be part of the Federal budget or State budgets. They are regulatory requirements that affect private sector activity, but the government does not collect or spend tax dollars. As a matter of common sense, whatever the technical scoring of the program, the American people know that the premiums they paid for private insurance yesterday did not become governmental receipts today because of CBO's conclusion. Average citizens know that health insurance premiums under the President's plan are premiums--nothing more, nothing less. The opponents of the President's plan and the special interest groups that stand to gain from continuation of the status quo will try to shift the debate away from CBO's fundamental conclusion--which is that the President's plan will guarantee universal, comprehensive health insurance coverage and save money at the same time. The real issue is not the technical question of whether the President's plan or another plan should be included in the Federal Budget. The real issue is which plan does the job of ending the Nation's health care crisis. By this standard, CBO's analysis is a convincing vote of confidence in President Clinton's plan. None of the plans advanced by the President's opponents can claim a similar seal of budget approval. Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr President, passage of the Goals 2000 bill is something to be proud of. In fact, it may turn out to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that we pass in many years. If this bill turns out to be the catalyst that we need to take action to improve America's schools, it may well be the most important bill of the decade. Goals 2000 establishes goals that will lead to the kind of educational achievement that America needs. It is a sad commentary, however, that it has taken 10 years since the publication of ``A Nation at Risk,'' and 6 years since the education summit to get around to passing this legislation. Hard work remains. We have much to do to reform our schools to make them responsive to the needs of today and tomorrow. Even more important, we have a great challenge before us to help the children and families who are at risk, to make sure they see education as the way out of the cycle of poverty. It is sad that we have let the situation go so long before taking action. The effect on our economy of our current school system is significant. Up to $1 trillion is lost in GDP because of our failure to educate our populace. American business spends approximately $200 billion per year to perform remedial training for its employees. This is training necessary to provide these individuals minimum skills require to perform on the job. The Department of Education estimates that 30 million adult Americans are functionally illiterate. Another 45 million are marginally illiterate. This creates a significant problem for our economy. ``Combating Illiteracy in the Workplace,'' by Robert Goddard puts the cost of this illiteracy at a staggering $225 billion. This includes lost productivity, unrealized taxes, crime, welfare, health, housing, and other social costs. We pay for our failed education system every time an individual drops out of high school. Lack of a high school degree costs an individual $440,000 in lifetime earnings. These lost earnings often drive these individuals into welfare, crime, and drugs. Federal expenditures for welfare were $208 billion per year and medical costs of violent crime amounts to $18 billion per year. Illegal drugs cost the economy $238 billion per year as estimated by Brandeis University. These difficult circumstances perpetuate themselves generation after generation. We need an educated populace to keep pace with international competition. United States technology has led the world for decades, but the lead is being severely challenged. If we expect to maintain an active pace of technology development, we must have world-class scientist and engineers, and we must have a workforce that have the skills to work with leading edge technology. Unfortunately, on a recent test of 13-year-olds from 11 nations, U.S. students placed last in mathematics, and next to last in science. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, fewer than one in four U.S. fourth and eight grade students are able to meet high standards of performance in mathematics or reading. Unfortunately, as we attempt to reverse these trends, we are losing one of our most effective and significant trainers, the military. With force levels declining from 2.2 million men and women to 1.4 million, the volume of military training will decline significantly. Military training provides a significant contribution to the skills and leadership of our young people. It also provides them with the ability to continue on to higher education. Approximately 150,000 fewer young men and women will get this training each year. Many of our schools systems should be reformed. Those efforts are underway. But new methods and ideas are not the only solution. Our schools need additional funding. One need only to look at the state of our laboratories and school buildings to see the need. Other ideas such as longer school years, and a longer school day also can be accomplished as soon as the necessary funds are available. We need to start today to raise the priority of education in this country and work to find ways to provide funds that will give our school systems a chance to reach the goals in this bill. I am proposing that we increase Federal funding for education by 1 percent of Federal spending, about $15 billion, each year, until we reach 10 percent of the budget. This is approximately the cost of fully funding the education programs we have in current law, and the initiatives such as extending the school year, which are needed if we are serious about obtaining the goals we have set out in this legislation. Only then will we be able to tell whether this is an important bill, or just another empty promise. I am pledged to make Goals 2000 an important milestone in our history. ____________________