[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 51 (Tuesday, May 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        SOUTH AFRICAN ELECTIONS

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I want to speak about a dramatic event 
which took place last week and was concluded yesterday in the tally of 
a vote in the first democratic election in history that was held in 
South Africa.
  As South Africans stood in long lines, sometimes up to 7 hours or 
more, to cast their votes, one could not help but be deeply moved by 
their commitment, their desire to be participants in their country's 
future.
  Yesterday, President de Klerk conceded defeat, and Nelson Mandela 
accepted victory for the African National Congress. Who would have 
imagined only a few years ago that such a transformation would be 
possible? As somebody who has closely followed the situation in South 
Africa for more than a decade, I marvel at what has been accomplished 
by the people of South Africa.
  Mr. President, during this dramatic transition, South Africa has been 
gifted with two extraordinary leaders: Nelson Mandela and F.W. de 
Klerk. Their vision and courageous leadership stand as an example for 
statesmen around the world. Both have worked tirelessly to guide their 
country from the repressive system of racial separation, known as 
apartheid, to the hope of democracy. It is largely through their 
efforts that the democratic transition in South Africa has succeeded. 
The path ahead will not be easy, as all who have been participants have 
recognized. Growing unemployment, distrust, and violence stand as 
serious challenges to a new government. But I am confident that the 
people of South Africa, who have overcome so much, can meet this test.
  South Africa now stands on the brink of a new future, one fraught 
with difficulties but filled with such promise and hope.
  At his trial in 1964, Nelson Mandela eloquently and courageously 
articulated his vision for South Africa. It has been said many times, 
but I think it bears repeating.
  He said:

       During my lifetime, I have dedicated myself to this 
     struggle of the African people. I have fought against white 
     domination. I have fought against black domination. I have 
     cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which 
     all persons live together in harmony and with equal 
     opportunities.

  Nelson Mandela's dream today for his country has taken a step toward 
that reality.
  Mr. President, I think in many ways what is most remarkable is that 
after spending 27 years in prison, Nelson Mandela, 4 years ago, was 
able to walk away from prison without hatred in his heart or rancor and 
with that vision still intact. He has provided leadership for the 
vision that he has always held, which is so powerful and compelling 
that it draws others to it and creates hope and confidence to overcome 
fear and insecurity.
  That should be a lesson for all who choose to lead. I know that we 
all in this country today join in wishing success in the future to 
those in South Africa.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it appears to me it is about 6\1/2\ 
minutes to the hour, and I ask if it will be possible for me to speak 
until about 3 minutes after the hour?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota has 15 
minutes remaining under his control.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Oh, he did.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. How much time would the Senator from West 
Virginia desire? How would that fit in the 15 minutes?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator will use less than that amount of time. 
I cannot say exactly, but it certainly will be less than that amount of 
time. Will it be all right for the Senator to proceed?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia is 
recognized for such time as he may consume up to 10 minutes, or more if 
he wishes--10 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am very honored to have this pleasant exchange 
with my senior colleague from West Virginia on this fine day of this 
year.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.


                              HEALTH CARE

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, from what I hear, the latest arrow 
being flung at health care reform has something to do with a poll from 
the chamber of commerce. I rise to comment.
  As Yogi Berra said, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' Haven't we been 
here before? Over the past months, we have been forced to spend mind-
boggling amounts of time debating the semantics and even the necessity 
of health care reform. Along the way, we even had to take time out once 
to decide whether we face a health care crises or merely a serious 
problem. We waited patiently for the Congressional Budget Office to put 
the President's plan under a piercing magnifying glass, finally to get 
the verdict we expected--this is a plan that will achieve universal 
coverage while bringing down overall costs to America's families, 
businesses, and the economy.
  But there is hardly a day still when are not reminded that taking on 
big problems never gets easy.
  Sometimes I am tempted to suggest that the people and the interest 
groups who are not ready to make the tough choices involved in health 
reform may as well introduce there own bill with a title that says 
exactly where they stand--and in the interests of truth-in-labeling, 
their bill should be called ``The Continuation of the Status Quo in 
Health Care Act from 1994 Through the Next Century.'' I say to the 
arrow-slingers, instead of spending all this time arguing against the 
best ways to achieve the goals of universal coverage and cost 
containment, why not spend some time trying to sell the American people 
on keeping everything the way it is? The reason, of course, is that it 
would mean admitting to the results: more Americans losing their health 
insurance, fewer businesses being able to afford the cost of covering 
their workers, less choice in doctors and health care plans for most 
Americans, and higher health care costs to saddle our workers, 
families, and economy. What a deal--all this and no hope of long-term 
care or prescription drug coverage for a single additional senior 
citizen or disabled American.
  But instead, we are here talking about a poll commissioned by a group 
that has suddenly gotten cold feet in the debate over health care 
reform.
  There was a time--not too long ago--when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
played a very constructive role in health care reform. Twenty years 
ago, the chamber helped President Nixon assemble a health care plan 
that relied on employer mandates as an alternative to a Canadian style, 
single-payer system. More recently, the chamber studied reform ideas, 
assigned a health committee to weigh different facets of reform, and 
finally issued a set of recommendations in favor of reform that 
included shared employer responsibility. Clearly, the chamber of 
commerce was in tough with the needs and the concerns of its members 
and the Nation. And clearly, the chamber realized employers were paying 
much of the tab for our bloated, inefficient, wasteful health care 
system and needed to be part of the solution.
  But in the past 3 months, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has fled the 
choppy waters of health care reform. The problem is that there is no 
such thing as a safe shore or a safe harbor when it comes to health 
care. We have to get to the other side of those waters, and that can 
only be done by passing a plan that will guarantee everyone coverage at 
an affordable price.
  Last week the chamber issued a puffed-up poll saying that 70 percent 
of their members opposed an employer mandate and hardly support health 
reform at all. That sounds pretty convincing but it ignores some 
fundamental truths:
  First, less than one-fifth of the chamber's members participated in 
the poll.
  Second, this poll looks like one more move by a minority faction 
within the business community to hijack debate. An earlier step by the 
same group forced the chamber of commerce to dump the committee 
procedure that had constructively engaged the organization in the 
reform process. We also have just seen the termination of top employees 
of the chamber who were committed to the success of health care reform.
  Third, the business leader who had headed the chamber's health and 
employee benefits committee resigned not because the chamber backed 
away from supporting shared employer responsibility. He gave up when 
the chamber leadership even backed away from requiring firms to offer 
but not pay for coverage and helping poor Americans get coverage 
through subsidies. When said about this move, he said: ``Without these 
two positions, the chamber will have virtually no proposals that deals 
with the problem of lack of insurance for Americans.''
  So, if the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to opt out on reform, that 
is their choice and a very disappointing one. But Congress should not 
lose their way as a result of this last-minute switch in signals. We 
put health care reform at the top of our agenda because of what our 
small business owners and workers have been telling us for years. We 
have to enact health reform because of the real-life worries of the 
American people we represent--like the small business people who make 
up the chamber--who have told us to get to work and fix our nation's 
health care system. I am disappointed in the chamber, but I am not 
discouraged about health care reform.

  We have some hard choices and decisions to make, and of course we are 
getting an earful from the special interests and lobbyists. That is 
what they are paid to do. But we are being paid to sort through what 
they tell us and what our constituents tell us, and to come up with a 
solution that is best for the public's overall interest.
  One of the hard choices is about mandates. If we are serious about 
reform and determined to provide coverage to all Americans, then 
employer mandates are a must.
  Plain and simple, the easiest way to provide universal coverage is to 
build on the system that already provides 90 percent of Americans with 
private health coverage--through the workplace. It is not just a matter 
of convenience. It is a matter of smart fiscal year economic 
responsibility. Somewhere around 90 percent of all companies--except 
for the smallest that employ less than five workers--provide insurance. 
Yet these companies pay an extra $10 billion in premiums each year to 
cover care for uninsured Americans. Plus, they spend almost $30 billion 
covering workers' dependents who are employed by firms that do not 
offer insurance. So the system we have today puts an extra $40 billion 
in costs on the backs of American firms who are trying to do the right 
thing.
  An employer mandate levels the playing field and stops one business 
from dumping its responsibilities on another. One of my West Virginia 
constituents, the owner of a small, family-run upholstery business, put 
it pretty clearly to me, saying that while he insures his workers just 
because it is the right thing to do, plenty of his competitors do not, 
saving them money and giving them an unfair advantage. Should this 
small business be penalized for treating its workers fairly and with 
dignity? Of course not. But in effect that is what is happening today 
without an employer mandate.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates businesses would save $20 
billion in just 6 years and $90 billion in 10 years with an employer 
mandate. They said the effect of an employer mandate would have a 
negligible effect on employment and leveling of costs would benefit all 
small businesses. The independent Employee Benefit Research Institute 
predicts as many as half a million jobs could be created under the 
Health Security Act. And in the process all Americans would have 
guaranteed private health insurance. So, the chamber can trumpet its 
poll all day, but these are the numbers that should count. The numbers 
that will save money for businesses and translate into jobs, pay 
raises, and real peace of mind for workers.
  I am not just talking about models, theories, or best-case scenarios 
here, either. An employer mandate has been put to the test in Hawaii 
for 20 years. The effects of that mandate? How about one of the lowest 
unemployment rates in the Nation? How about a 200-percent growth in 
employers through 1991 and a rate of business failure less than half 
the national rate? How about health premiums almost $400 less than the 
national average because of less cost-shifting to cover uncompensated 
care? Finally, how about the fact that only 2 percent of Hawaii's rainy 
day fund set up to assist small businesses has ever been used? That is 
the kind of economic impact a level playing field and reasonable costs 
can deliver.
  So let us throw out the hysteria, and the doomsday predictions on 
employer mandates. I am sorry a group of chamber of commerce members 
got cold feet, but we in Congress should not succumb to the latest 
arrow. An employer mandate is simple common sense and is widely 
supported by the public. It asks nothing more than shared 
responsibility among workers and employers for providing coverage. It 
asks that everyone--big business and small--play by the same rules. It 
asks that we all give something in return for the security of 
guaranteed private insurance. And it holds out the hope that we all can 
ease the burden health care coverage weighs us down under.
  Our job now is to produce a health care bill that can stand the tests 
of time and politics. That is quite a charge and it is time for us all 
to finish our work.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All of the time controlled by the Senator 
from South Dakota has expired.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we should do our business, as I am 
sure we will.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, my distinguished senior colleague, for 
being so courteous and gracious and wish him a good day. I yield the 
floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

                          ____________________