[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.

                          ____________________