[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 106 (Thursday, August 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                              HEALTH CARE

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there are going to be a number of people 
speaking here this evening on the subject of health care. I would like 
to speak briefly.
  I was thinking this morning when a group of us met to discuss health 
care--Senator Jeffords of Vermont and I, and a number of CEO's of 
companies, including Ben and Jerry's--I said at the time that we hear 
those people who oppose health care reform--they come and they speak. 
They holler, they have ads, they spend millions of dollars to speak out 
against it. They forecast disaster if we pass universal care.
  Some of these same people are the same ones who said that if 
President Clinton's budget passed, we would have massive tax increases 
and a job-killing recession; everybody would be out of work; taxes 
would go up; the place would be a disaster.
  What happened? Just the opposite happened. The budget passed. For the 
first time in 12 years deficits started coming down. Employment is up; 
inflation remains under control. Do you know what about those big tax 
increases is true? There were some Americans who were taxed. The top 
1.2 percent of Americans finally started paying their fair share. What 
do we get? We get 3.8 million new jobs in the private sector. 
Incidentally, that is a year of new jobs; 1\1/2\ million more jobs than 
in the 4 years previously.
  So when we hear these doomsayers come in and say, ``Oh, we want 
health care for the poor people. We understand that Americans might be 
out of a job temporarily, and may lose their health care. We understand 
you may need it. We want it for you. Of course, we want it, but not 
quite yet, not quite in this form. We must make some new change. We 
must do something different. Of course, we want you to have health 
care. Of course, we want you to have this. But it is not quite right 
yet.''
  Baloney, Mr. President. Look at the people who are saying this. The 
people who are saying this are the people who have health care. The 
people who are saying this are the people who have a great deal of 
money. The people who are saying this have a vested interest in keeping 
the status company a status quo, that as tens of thousands of 
Vermonters know, they have no health care coverage, and tens of 
millions of other Americans have no health care coverage.
  The people who are saying this are not the people who have a child 
with a serious illness and they cannot get insurance for that child. 
The people are saying this are not the people who have a preexisting 
condition and now know that they cannot get health insurance. The 
people who are saying this are not the people who have a spouse 
diagnosed with an illness a few weeks after they lost their job and 
they cannot get health insurance for them. Those are not the people. 
But the people who do not have the health care coverage are very 
real, and there are millions of them in this country. Do you know what 
this reminds me of, Mr. President? Back before I was born, they had the 
great debate over Social Security. While I understand we are dealing 
with a different type of system, the arguments are so strikingly 
similar. Back then, they said, first, we have to do something for these 
elderly, something for these people who retire, something for these 
people who are suddenly thrown out of work--but not yet. Can you 
imagine if the Congress of the United States and Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt just said, ``I guess you have a point''? We would not have 
Social Security yet.

  I have been here, Mr. President, for 20 years, and I have heard talk 
of going forward in health care. But it always has to be pushed off, 
for some reason, to a later time. When I was a child, Harry Truman was 
President, and he talked of health care.
  The time is now. Both bodies have before them health care 
legislation, and we should go forward. I see on the floor my good 
friend from Massachusetts, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, the 
man who has led a crusade for health care. You do not see him standing 
here and saying: Well, let us wait another year, study it another year. 
He knows, as I know, as all of us know, that we have to face up to the 
issue now.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes.
  (Mr. REID assumed the chair.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the kind remarks of the Senator. As the 
Senator may remember, it was in 1912 when President Teddy Roosevelt 
called for comprehensive universal care. As the Senator pointed out--I 
was listening to him talk about Harry Truman--Harry Truman was asked 
what his greatest disappointment was, and he said it was the failure to 
get a national health care program.
  Now we have had the President's program for 9 months and we have had 
both the Finance Committee's and our committee's; the programs have 
been out for several months. It is very interesting that--and the 
majority leader has made his presentation to the Senate and has 
introduced his plan--we have yet to have the plan of the Republicans. I 
know they had made a presentation in June of this year, and 44 Members 
signed on. We are talking about the Members on the opposite side saying 
they want to take all of this time because they want to find out what 
is in it. Yet, 44 of them signed on to a program that has not even been 
introduced yet.
  I just am wondering whether the Senator would agree with me that the 
American people will know what dilatory procedures are and what 
dilatory processes are about and would he agree with me that they are 
going to be watching this debate and holding us to a very high 
standard? Given the fact that the future of every family in America, in 
a very real way, is going to be decided in the next 3 weeks--really, in 
the next 21 days here--on this floor of the U.S. Senate and also on the 
floor of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. LEAHY. I could not agree more with my friend from Massachusetts. 
I suspect that the American people know the arguments that have been 
heard and have been discussed. The Senator from Massachusetts, through 
his chairmanship and his committee, brought to the floor of the Senate 
a bill. He probably does not want to think of the number of hours, 
days, weeks and months of hearings he had. I daresay that my friend 
from Massachusetts has heard every single argument for or against every 
single aspect of health care during that time. And he, like myself, is 
ready to start voting. I suspect, Mr. President, that the American 
people are saying that we have heard the arguments, and now we would 
like to know are you going to stand up and vote or not. It is put up or 
shut up time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Further, we had a very interesting markup of some 10 
days. It was well-attended by our Republican colleagues. Just about 
every member of our committee attended from the earliest of morning 
until late into the evenings. I would say that of the 15 major kinds of 
policy areas, we were able to get bipartisan support on about 11 of 
those. We were not able to agree with regard to the issue of shared 
responsibility and also with regard to the issue of cost containment, 
trying to get a handle on the continued escalation of costs which are 
affecting so many American families. But we were able to reach some 
common ground in these other areas. Some were important with regard to 
cost control that we supported. It was supported virtually unanimously 
by all the members to give the authority to the health board that was 
established initially in the President's program--the responsibility 
that if the costs were rising and going out of the projection, they 
would be able to make a submission to the Congress on how the benefits 
could be adjusted in order to meet the amounts which had been initially 
recommended in terms of total health care costs. And this was a tough 
cost containment provision that Republicans and Democrats worked 
toward.
  I noted this when the Senator was talking. In listening to him 
talking about the challenge which is before us, I gather from his 
speech--and I am just wondering whether it is true--that he is really 
trying to call on the best instincts of all of us in this institution 
to try to find common ground, such as in the great areas of knocking 
down the walls of discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, 
race, religion, or ethnicity, ending a war in Southeast Asia, and many 
of the other very, very important areas. Ultimately, even in the Social 
Security area in the 1930's, about three-quarters of the House of 
Representatives' Republicans, after resisting the mandate, the shared 
responsibility, there were 188 votes among Republicans in the House of 
Representatives that said ``no'' in terms of universal coverage. But 
three-quarters of them ended up in support of the Social Security.
  We had similar resistance in terms of the Medicare debate in 1964 and 
1965. The Senator may remember that between September of 1964 and the 
spring of 1965, I think there were 16 Members of the Senate that 
switched their positions and voted in favor of Medicare. One of them 
was not the Republican leader. It is, I think, a historical fact that 
he opposed Medicare because of a shared responsibility. But sometime 
between then and now, his views have changed.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in fact, I will note what my friend from 
Massachusetts said about this being a matter where we should come 
together and seek common ground. I think of, again, using the Social 
Security analogy under the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt. 
As I understand it, the first check went to a woman in Vermont. If it 
was somebody in Vermont in the mid-thirties, I can guarantee to the 
Senator from Massachusetts that she was a Republican, because virtually 
everybody in the State was at that time.
  But the point I make is, it is not just Democrats, it is not just 
Republicans, it is not just Independents, who have the sick child, or 
the aged parent, or the spouse who needs health insurance or is out of 
a job, or a sibling, or anyone else. It is all Americans who face this 
potential.
  We do not pass health care legislation to protect Democrats or 
Republicans or Independents or black, white, yellow, North, South, 
anywhere else. We do it for all Americans. We are the wealthiest, most 
powerful Nation on Earth, but we lag behind the rest of the 
industrialized nations in how we protect our people from the surge of 
health care costs.
  I took the floor earlier simply because I planned to speak after the 
Senator from Massachusetts. We had nobody here, and I spoke. I am going 
to yield the floor very quickly with this thought, only to say this 
morning at our meeting I mentioned Ben Cohen was there. I have been 
knowing Ben Cohen for a long time. He and Jerry Greenfield started out 
with a gas station a block from my office in Burlington, VT. Then they 
started making ice cream. Some was good. Some was terrible. It was 
trial and error. Now it is all good ice cream called Ben & Jerry's. 
This is not a walking ad.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am ready to sign on.
  Mr. LEAHY. They said they would put in health insurance for their 
employees, and they have done it. They set it up.
  I tell my friend from Massachusetts, you cannot imagine any smaller 
company. Here were two guys with a mail order catalog trying to figure 
out how to make ice cream; they have health insurance for their 
employees. Now, they are a well-respected company, and they were able 
to beat out most of the competition. Never once, of any size, small to 
large, did they question the fact they had a shared responsibility to 
provide health insurance.
  There were a dozen other companies who were there to say the same 
thing.
  I think that is what we must know. We are in this, all of us, 
together.
  I thank and I applaud my friend from Massachusetts for his constant 
leadership.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, we 
took notice the other day in the Senate where a young enterprising 
businessman, Mr. Scalar, who started Burrito Brothers here, and now 
that business has taken off. They are going to have a $200,000 profit, 
the first profit this year. And you can just see the success over the 
period of about the last 18 months to 2 years. Everything is really 
falling in place. Sales have been going up. There has been interest in 
franchising this program. And here they are, providing health insurance 
for their employees.
  They made the judgment as a matter of policy when they started that 
they were going to do this.
  Then we have this gigantic pizza consortium, which not only are 
providing for their workers overseas and expanding significantly 
overseas in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and in Japan, 
and are willing to pay over there, but then are taking on a leadership 
role to try to defeat the President's program here at home. And, with 
some exceptions, they are refusing to provide the kind of coverage here 
at home for American workers that they were doing overseas for other 
workers.
  Sure, they take care of their executives. And if you stayed in there 
long enough they would make a contribution to supplemental kinds of 
insurance. But for those workers, the overwhelming majority of their 
workers, American workers, they were saying no, they are not going to 
provide for their American workers here at home, and they were going to 
provide overseas.
  I just saw our good friend from Hawaii on the floor.
  So I called around to the various Pizza Huts in the area. I think I 
am only a few cents off, I think it is the 14-inch pizza that I think 
was $11.09 out in Arlington.
  Then I called and found out that in Hawaii, which has the fastest 
growing, most favorable small-business climate of any State in the 
country, and has comprehensive coverage, which includes even the 
smallest businesses of two or three individuals, and I found out that 
pizza out there was $3 more. And I thought, my goodness, I bet that is 
probably because they had a mandate.
  So then I called up to Alaska that does not have a mandate, and found 
out they were $4.50 more--$4.50 more--and they have no mandate up 
there.
  The point is, seeing our good friend and colleague from Hawaii, one 
of the strong supporters of the program of universal coverage here, 
that, first of all, I think it is an unfortunate judgment and decision 
that Pizza Hut made in terms of providing comprehensive coverages for 
their foreign workers and not providing it here at home, and then 
taking the leadership position on that, and then effectively 
intimidating the television stations around here with threats of libel 
for a commercial that the CEO of Pizza Hut, when we watched it in our 
committee, could find differences in terms of emphasis, but he did not 
criticize the underlying message of that commercial.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note also on that that the profit margin, 
as far as fast food, is about the highest in pizza. If they were all 
mandated to give the insurance the way we talked about, it probably 
would not add to the same pizza that the Senator from Massachusetts 
talks about--may have added 10 cents or 15 cents to it.
  Does anybody suggest that people are going to stop eating pizzas 
because they are 10 cents more?
  With that I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the fact is that we had heard the 
comparison of those that opposed this program suggesting that the price 
of pizza will go up to $19 because that is what it costs overseas. That 
is completely inaccurate.
  The basic calculation, given the labor costs as a percent of total 
costs, and adding the additional cost of the health care figured into 
it would probably be 40 cents more per pizza here in the United States. 
We reviewed that during the course of the hearing.
  Mr. President, I will just take a few moments. I see my friend and 
colleague from Hawaii, who has provided very, very important leadership 
on this whole issue both in educating many of us who have had the good 
chance to review the health care system in the State of Hawaii. We hear 
a great deal about how the States can be incubators, how the States can 
really be resources for examining ideas, and how we ought to be able to 
look to the States, and we rarely--although not entirely infrequently--
but we rarely have the kind of example for a health insurance program 
with shared responsibility to take action to benefit all of the States, 
like we have had in Hawaii.
  Effectively, they have had a system of shared responsibility. They 
have shared responsibility. The program has been in effect for, I 
believe, probably close to 20 years and has had an enormous impact on 
the health of the people and the cost of health care.
  It has a great emphasis, and I know all the Senate will benefit from 
listening to our friend and colleague on the preventive aspect of 
health care, giving encouragement to bring people into the health care 
system rather than waiting until they move into a more serious illness 
and sickness. And then what they have been able to do in terms of the 
cost, and in a climate which has been one of the most constructive and 
positive climates for the expansion of small business.
  We are not dealing with an issue, although we will hear this is some 
new program, new idea. We have seen the examples of Hawaii and, quite 
frankly, more recently the adoption in the State of Washington, a down 
payment on some of this program by my own State of Massachusetts, 
elements of the President's program, and in different forms and shapes 
in a number of other States.
  I will not delay the Senate other than to just, as we move on into 
this process, draw attention once again to what is happening in our 
country with the increasing number of uninsured. It is large, and it is 
growing. Particularly vulnerable among this group are the children, the 
12 million children in our society who do not have health care. Some of 
the poorest children get the coverage in terms of Medicaid. We have 12 
million that do not get it, and that number is growing--that number is 
growing.
  And then, if we look over at what has happened across the industrial 
countries of the world and what is being expended, here we are, the No. 
1, with that number escalated.
  No, you will say, there has been a modification of the increase in 
the health care. And this particular year we saw that as well. When we 
were debating cost containment in the late 1970's under President 
Carter, there was a slowdown in terms of the escalation and increase 
clause. Once that program was defeated the escalation started right up 
again. I daresay we have learned that lesson once. I do not think we 
have to learn that again.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Gorton pertaining to the introduction of S. 2363 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see our good friend and colleague, 
Senator Pell, on the floor to address the Senate on the health care 
issue. Because Senator Pell has a special credibility on this issue, 
hopefully, sometime this evening, he will share with us his early 
support for universal coverage and comprehensive health coverage when 
he first began his illustrious political career.
  I see Senator Akaka has returned to the floor, so I leave it up to 
the Chair how it wants to decide.
  Mr. AKAKA addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii seeks recognition.
  Does the Senator from Rhode Island seek recognition?
  Mr. PELL. I do, but I would be happy to defer to the Senator from 
Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. The Senator may go ahead.
  Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                     health care reform legislation

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, for almost 34-years, I have spoken on the 
Senate floor about a variety of subjects, ranging from war and peace to 
the need for certain projects in my home State of Rhode Island. And 
over my own 34-years here I have listened to the views and exhortations 
of eight Presidents, hundreds of fellow Senators, and hundreds of 
thousands of Rhode Islanders on subjects large and small. I have seen 
and participated in the development and passage of countless bills, 
from legislation that has changed our Nation, like Medicare, to 
legislation of purely local or limited interest. It is from this 
vantage point that I observe where we are today, and where we hope to 
be tomorrow.
  Never in all my years in the Senate has a moment arrived so full of 
promise and opportunity. We are on the brink of history--of passing, or 
failing to pass--legislation to reform our Nation's health care system, 
legislation that will touch every American in a deep and personal way. 
Never before, perhaps, have we tried to do something quite so 
ambitious, and so right. And never before have we had to summon such 
political courage, standing up to vested interests that are paying 
mightly to prevent Congress from threatening their financial interests 
in order to better serve the American people's best interests.
  But that is where we are today. And depending on the courage, the 
commitment, and the principles of the Senators and Congress, people the 
American people have elected, we will emerge in a few short months 
either victorious, and on the road to quality health care for all--or 
defeated and facing a crumbling system that may not be reformed, in our 
lifetime. For if we fail, with a President and administration totally 
dedicated to health care reform, and with the American people wanting 
health care reform, it will be another generation at least before any 
other President or Congress can summon the political courage to try 
again. In my view, the moment is now, and the time is here. It is an 
idea whose time has come.
  Mr. President, I have often said--when asked how I decide how I will 
vote--that I will decide based on the best interests of our Nation and 
our State. And that on purely economic matters, I often put aside my 
personal views for the good of the people of our State. And that on 
matters of conscience, I believe that the people of Rhode Island have 
elected me to use my best judgment, to strip away the rhetoric, to 
address the facts, and to vote for what I truly believe to be in the 
best interest of our people. And in the almost 34 years I have been 
doing this, I have never before seen the two issues--our economic well-
being and the moral thing do to--coverage so completely as they have on 
the issue of health care reform.
  That is why the issue of health care reform--despite its 
extraordinary complexity--is actually a pretty simple one for me.
  I believe that every American deserves to have quality health care 
when he or she needs it. I believe that every child in this country 
should have access to needed medical and preventive services. I believe 
that every pregnant woman should have medical care early and as needed 
during pregnancy. I believe that no one should be denied medical care 
simply because they cannot afford to pay for health insurance, and that 
is the case today. I believe that our health care system--while it 
offers the best and most advanced health care in the world--is too 
expensive, too complicated, and too inaccessible for far too many 
Americans. And I believe that the business of business, rather than the 
business of medicine, has been the impetus for many of the changes that 
have taken place in our health care system up to now. It is time for us 
to change that.
  Mr. President, early in his administration, President Clinton sent to 
the Congress his own health reform legislation. And during this 103d 
Congress, more than 100 bills have been introduced on the subject of 
health care reform, each reflecting the views and preferences of its 
sponsor and cosponsors. In addition, virtually every business group, 
health professional group, and consumer group in this country has 
offered its own suggested health care reform plan or comments on 
someone else's plan. It would seem impossible for anyone to reconcile 
all those views and interests into a single bill that everyone can 
support.
  And yet, that is exactly what the majority leader has done. He has 
looked at the issues that the American people care about, and he has 
listened to the concerns of every Senator. He has crafted a bill that 
asks those of us who want to do much more to be patient, and to accept 
less. He has crafted a bill that asks those who want to do much less to 
rise to the occasion and accept more. It was not an easy task, and the 
result is not perfect. But the Mitchell bill will get us on the right 
road--the road of quality health care for all--and in the end, it 
deserves every Senator's support.
  And getting on the right road now is critically important. In my own 
State of Rhode Island, 89,000 of our citizens do not have health 
insurance; 15,000 of those people are children, and a full 79 percent 
of our uninsured are in families where at least one family member 
works.
  Mr. President, in my State of Rhode Island, 8,000 people lose their 
health insurance every month. And they lose it for the same reasons 
that Americans all across the country lose their health insurance, 
because they got sick, or changed jobs, or lost their job, or because 
their employer stopped providing insurance, or because they simply 
couldn't afford the rising premiums any longer. In fact, the average 
health care payment paid by Rhode Island families in 1993 was $7,655, 
or 12.6 percent of family income. This is a 140-percent increase from 
what these families paid in 1980. And by the year 2000, the average 
Rhode Island family will have to pay $14,574 each year for health care, 
another 90-percent increase over 1993.
  The situation in my State, Mr. President, like the situation in so 
many others, demands action now. And I applaud the President and Mrs. 
Clinton for not allowing the naysayers to deter them from this 
critically important work. And I applaud the majority leader for 
recognizing that compromise is an art that can give birth to great 
things, and in this case, and with his plan as a beginning, I believe 
that it will. And I applaud the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] for the skillful, able way he guided the legislation through 
the Senate.
  Mr. President, I am one who hopes that changes can be made in the 
Mitchell bill when it comes before the Senate in the coming weeks. I 
would like to see universal coverage happen sooner, I would like to see 
costs contained more tightly, and I would like to see greater employer 
responsibility. But in the end, I believe that we must send to 
President Clinton a health care reform bill that guarantees every 
American that this country--the wealthiest Nation on earth--will not 
turn its back on any of us when we are sick.
  We have the best chance we have had since the founding of our Nation 
to achieve this objective. It is my greatest hope that we can seize the 
moment. And in doing this, let us be sure that our focus is on the 
objective and not be too concerned with the route to it. Whether it 
takes a little more or a little less time is not relevant when compared 
with the importance of our objectives--universal medical coverage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized for 10 
minutes.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, our country, the House of Representatives 
and the Senate will soon be considering an issue that will make a huge 
difference in our country's future, and that is health care reform. I 
cannot help but reach back a year or so and think about how this all 
began; how President Clinton gave the responsibility to the First Lady 
to begin to think about health care for our country and how the First 
Lady recruited leaders throughout the country, experts in the health 
field, and people who were consumers, to come together to share their 
thoughts about our health care needs. This was the beginning of a great 
movement of minds in our country.
  We have met many times with the First Lady, Hillary Clinton, with her 
staff, and we have also contributed with our own thoughts.
  What we will be considering as a health care act are really parts 
that have come from many minds throughout the country--from the 
consumers, from the providers, and from the legislative people in the 
Congress.
  What will occur will be the making of decisions, of putting parts 
together into a health bill that will help our country.
  I want to commend our President for his insights, his leadership, his 
vision, and also Hillary for her expertise and many others who have 
helped her in this effort.
  I also want to commend our leader here, Senator Kennedy of 
Massachusetts, for his leadership in this health care movement. I also 
commend our leader for his, what we call, compromise bill which has 
lessened the opposition to the bill and which makes it very possible 
for its passage in a week or so. I also want to commend Senator 
Moynihan for his efforts.
  This great movement is one that has been going on for 18 months of 
study and analysis. After a broad public discussion, countless town 
meetings, and other local gatherings, after listening to what Harry and 
Louise have to say about health care, and after the greatest effort at 
public outreach this country has ever witnessed, the time has come for 
Congress to act on health care.
  Mr. President, I have joined today's debate on health care because 
the State I represent, the State of Hawaii, leads the Nation in 
ensuring that basic health care is available to all its people. The 
Hawaii system delivers high-quality care, without high costs, despite 
the fact that Hawaii's cost of living is among the highest in the 
Nation.
  I am here to tell you, Mr. President, that Hawaii has achieved the 
American health care dream--near universal health care coverage for its 
citizens--and we achieved this because of what we call shared 
responsibility by employers. There is no reason why the rest of the 
country should settle for anything less than what Hawaii enjoys.
  I remember back in 1973 when the idea of a prepaid health care act 
was introduced in Hawaii and about the difficulties that we had with 
our providers and with the consumers about the cost of health care in 
Hawaii. We had a difficult time.
  What is happening to us today reminds me of what happened to us in 
1973. It is very, very similar. People were scared. Small business was 
scared, and they felt that they could not make a go out of contributing 
and sharing this responsibility.
  For 20 years, Hawaii has maintained a model health care system. The 
cornerstone of our system is the Hawaii Prepaid Health Care Act. This 
law requires all of Hawaii's employers--except for certain family-owned 
businesses and employers who compensate through commissions--to provide 
health insurance to their employees.
  As a result, Hawaii has one of the healthiest populations in the 
Nation. A study by the Journal of American Medical Association found 
that Hawaii has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the Nation. 
Our death rates from chronic health problems, such as cancer and heart 
disease, are also among the lowest. In Hawaii, life-threatening 
conditions are usually detected earlier, which reduces premature death 
and shortens hospital visits. Because our population has ready access 
to doctors, we use hospital and emergency rooms less often.
  Our system is based on preventive medicine. As a group, Hawaii 
citizens are very healthy people. We are the closest thing you will 
find to a health care paradise in America today.
  The employer mandate that we have discussed in the Senate and which 
many people, I would say, are afraid of today is the cornerstone of 
Hawaii's health care system. Without shared responsibility by 
employers, the dream of universal coverage would never be realized.
  Hawaii is the last State accepted into the Union, but we are the 
first State to achieve near universal coverage. Americans should not 
accept anything less than what Hawaii has achieved.
  Opponents of health care reform and the employer mandate allege that 
business cannot afford to pay for coverage for their employees. They 
contend mandating that employers provide health care insurance will 
lead to widespread business failures. Yet, Hawaii's requirement that 
employers provide health insurance has not led to a disruption of 
Hawaii's small business sector. Small business dominates our State, and 
our employer mandate has not undermined our business climate. Our small 
business in 1973 was scared of the system, and today, Hawaii's 
employers pay 30 percent less on premiums than the rest of the country.
  Compared to health care in Hawaii, the Mitchell plan is modest. It is 
not radical. It is not revolutionary. It will bring our country in line 
with every developed nation in the Western Hemisphere that guarantees 
their citizens basic and affordable health care.
  The Mitchell bill is a giant step forward for millions of middle-
class Americans who simply cannot afford to get sick. It is a good 
bill, and Americans will have better health care once we enact it, and 
we should enact it.
  I will tell you, Mr. President, that should we not enact this health 
care bill, we would be encouraging--now get this--we would be 
encouraging quackery in our country. I can see where, if we do not pass 
this bill now, that people in our country will not be going to see 
doctors, they will not be going to hospitals, they will be taking care 
of themselves, they will be going to people who claim they have the 
solution to cure all ailments, and this is what I mean by quackery. 
People will do this should we not pass this bill.
  It is so important, Mr. President, that we provide a health care act 
for every citizen in our country. They deserve it. We need to do it for 
them, and we can do it.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mitchell bill. It is the best 
bill that we have now. It will lead to great leaps in health care and 
the best health care in our country and in the world. Our leaders have 
done a great job, and I ask my colleagues to support our leaders, 
support our President, and to vote ``yes'' on full coverage health care 
for every citizen in our country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in 
speaking on this health care bill.
  Let me talk just real candidly to those who may be viewing this on 
television, because they may see some empty seats here and there is 
nothing pending and they are wondering why are we speaking. Real 
candidly, we are speaking to try to reach the American public.
  We are hearing right now from the special interests who profit by the 
status quo, and we are hearing from people who are confused, and a 
great many people are confused by the present situation and the present 
proposals. What people have to understand is that the 83 percent of the 
American public who are covered by insurance can keep the insurance 
they have right now, provided it gives basic benefits that are outlined 
in the legislation.
  But we have to join every other Western industrialized nation that 
covers all of their people. The Mitchell bill--and Senator Mitchell has 
worked hard on this--is a good beginning, but we ought to do better 
than that, real candidly, and I hope we can strengthen it. I hope the 
message can come from America out there, from American citizens that 
every American citizen ought to be covered. The new Times poll of the 
Nation says 79 percent of the American public believe that coverage for 
all Americans is very important, 17 percent believe it is somewhat 
important. That is a total of 96 percent. I cannot remember any 
controversial issue that was anything like that. Three percent say it 
is not important, and 1 percent have no opinion.
  Ninety-six percent of the American public believe health care 
coverage for everyone is important. And it is not simply these 
statistics. It is the woman in Wausau, WI. My uncle and aunt had a 50th 
wedding anniversary, and I went up there. The night before the event, I 
went to a restaurant with a cousin of mine, Ted Albert, and his wife 
Joan, and a woman recognized me in the restaurant and came up to me and 
said, ``My daughter has lupus. She is 25 years old. We can't get health 
insurance.''
  It is the woman in Putnam County, IL, who came up to me, carrying a 
disabled child, saying, ``My husband and I have health insurance but we 
have exceeded the $100,000 limit. We have now lost our home. We owe 
$16,000. What can you do to help us?''
  I had to tell her I cannot do anything. And I had to tell her every 
other Western industrialized nation would protect her but the United 
States does not protect her.
  About 3 weeks ago, I went over to the building I think they call the 
``Building of the States'' to do a TV satellite program where you put 
the earpiece in and you answer questions from a Chicago television 
station. I was on the air for roughly half an hour. And when the 
program was over, the woman behind the camera came up to me and said, 
``Ten years ago I had a serious problem.'' She looked very healthy to 
me now. She said, ``I can't get health insurance. What happens to me if 
I have to go to the hospital?'' And she started to cry.
  Those are the kinds of people we ought to be keeping in mind. That is 
why we have to pass coverage for every American. To say that we are 
going to achieve 95 percent--and that is a goal not likely to be 
achieved, but to say that we want to get 95 percent, that means we are 
leaving 12\1/2\ million Americans out. And who are the 12\1/2\ million 
Americans that are going to be left out? I do not know. But I do know 
that every economic study suggests that when you do not cover all 
Americans the costs go up, the costs escalate for everyone.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SIMON. I would be pleased to yield to a person who has done more 
over the years to push health care in this Senate than any other.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his remarks.
  I see our good friends, Senator Reid and Senator Daschle, on the 
floor. I just wanted to mention, I think the 95 percent is really a 
point on the way to universal. That is the way certainly I look at it 
and I hope others will look at it.
  But I might just say, when the Senator was mentioning lupus, as we 
know, that primarily affects women. Nine out of 10 people who get it 
are women of childbearing age. We do not adequately give that priority.
  The Senator was there when we passed a modest program to try to help 
and assist in developing the epidemiological histories in terms of 
lupus and other diseases. But the Senator is talking about a bare 
point.
  I want to mention, even though these programs do not include a 
feature of the system of our friends to the north-- and I just use this 
as an illustration--some years ago--it was actually at a hearing 
outside of Chicago, IL--we had individuals who were under a 
comprehensive universal system. This was the Canadian system. We are 
basically talking about a universal system and also cost controls, 
which the President is committed to.
  One of the extraordinary things that we learned at that hearing where 
we met parents of children who had, in this instance, spina bifida, but 
also other kinds of very heartbreaking and wrenching children's 
diseases.
  The parents--I can still remember the hearing, even though it was 
probably now some 20 years ago--the American parents, one was a 
schoolteacher and the other was a construction worker. The construction 
worker--it was during the winter--was out of work and he was trying to 
take care of the child. The mother was a teacher. But eventually the 
costs got so high--the tears came down their faces--that, having been 
wiped out financially, were then forced under the Medicaid Program to 
give that child up and put it in an institution.
  The family that was there from Canada, a husband and wife, talked 
about how they had adopted five children out of institutions into their 
home after their children had grown up, and the only thing that the 
province provided was the health care needs. They were glad to provide 
the roof. They were glad to provide the food. They were glad to heat 
the home. They were glad to try to provide some of the clothing that 
had been passed down because they had had six children and their 
children were just getting ahead and leaving home.
  It was the most extraordinary act of generosity. I asked these 
parents, I said, ``Why did you do it?'' And they said, ``We wanted our 
children to know what love and caring that the Bible teaches is all 
about and we thought that was the best way to do it.''
  The difference that it made to those children who were taken out of 
institutions and put in homes, the costs that were being saved for the 
taxpayers in doing that in a humane way, the health benefits to those 
children, because we all know that the children improve twice as fast 
when they are growing up either with the parents or with nurturing 
loved ones, I mean it was a win-win-win situation.
  That ought to be the nature of the debate that we are talking about 
next week. How unfortunate it is, as we are coming on the eve of what 
hopefully will be one of the great important debates, as Social 
Security and Medicare were, as we are listening to those who say we 
cannot wait to read this line by line and go through every single 
little page to find out and challenge people how to do it. I think that 
attitude demeans what this institution is about when it is at its very 
best.
  I am wondering whether the Senator would not agree that we ought to 
be trying to find ways to provide the kind of relief to families that 
are being impacted by sickness, illness, disease with preexisting 
conditions, recognizing that it is hard enough when these families are 
faced with the emotional and physical difficulties, but then to be 
saddled as well by the loss of their job or their insurance coverage or 
their bankruptcy, which is virtually intolerable.
  It seems to me that if we can really recognize that finally--if the 
Senator would agree with me--it is not only the dollars and cents, we 
will not hear so much the discussion and talk. But it is a very 
important discussion and talk about what it means to American families 
to be free from that fear. We cannot put a dollar sign on it. We will 
be challenged day in and day out. What is the cost of this, and what is 
the cost of that?
  I wonder if the Senator would agree with me that part of this whole 
great moment--and I think it will be a great moment, enormously 
important--is that we really put the American people first, we put 
sensible health policy second, and that we put the sense of compassion 
in terms of funding this and making commonsense judgments about these 
issues as a bottom line, and get about the business of American health 
care.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Illinois yield?
  Mr. SIMON. Let me respond to the Senator from Massachusetts, and then 
I will be pleased to yield to my friend from Nevada.
  I could not agree with the Senator from Massachusetts more. I did not 
happen to see President Clinton's press conference last night. But he 
had a man there who was not able to afford to go to a physician.
  Incidentally, those without health insurance go to a physician half 
as often as those of us who have coverage.
  His wife was ill, and they felt they could not afford to go to a 
physician. They found out finally--when she got so bad that she had to 
go--that she had cancer. She insisted that he get on this bus express. 
And while he was on the bus express he learned that his wife had died 
of cancer.
  It is stories like that over and over again.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have in my pocket the response of Mr. Cox to the 
suggestion of our minority Republican leader. Since the Senator 
initiated that discussion, he may want to share that with us now, and 
it is right on the point.
  Mr. SIMON. Let me read this. I am going to yield to my friend from 
Nevada.
  Let me add that if groups as varied as the AFL-CIO, the American 
Association of Retired Persons, and the American Medical Association 
all say we ought to have universal coverage for all citizens, I have to 
believe the U.S. Senate ought to see the wisdom of that.
  Let me just read this.

       On the Today Show this morning, Republican Party Chairman 
     Haley Barbour said John Cox's problem would be solved by the 
     Republican proposal. Senator Bob Dole said, ``Our bill fixes 
     the Cox case.''

  John Cox was the man whose wife died of cancer. John Cox responded 
this afternoon.

       Bob Dole said his plan would resolve my family's problems. 
     But I don't think that is true. From what I am told, the Dole 
     bill would not have made the insurance companies cover my 
     wife's cancer right away, and it could have put the entire 
     burden of paying for health coverage on my family. That is 
     what this is about, making sure that everyone has coverage 
     for what they need, when they need it, affordable coverage 
     you cannot lose no matter what. That is what my wife wanted. 
     That is what I want. And that is what President Clinton said 
     he wants when I met him yesterday.
       Delay cost my wife her life. I want Bob Dole to understand 
     that delays can cost lives. I wish they would stop with the 
     politics and pass this now. That is what my wife wanted, and 
     that is why she told me to make this journey.

  Then there is a little addendum by whoever put this out, how the Dole 
plan would fail to solve Daniel Lumley's health insurance problem. 
Daniel Lumley is not the person involved in that. He is another one.
  Mr. REID. He is the man missing the arm, who was at the press 
conference.
  Will the Senator yield? I wanted to comment, with the permission of 
the Senator from Illinois and my friend from Massachusetts.
  One of the interesting things about Senator Mitchell's bill, which is 
going to be before the Senate next week, is that it is deficit neutral. 
It will not cost any more money.
  If we do nothing with health care this year, 1994, we are not going 
to be able to do anything in any year. Health care costs in America 
will go up over $100 billion. We will not have any better health care 
as a result of health care costs going up over $100 billion. The money 
is going into red tape, fraud, and abuse, which this legislation which 
the majority leader has introduced will go right to the heart of.
  So we will take care of some of the problems with health care costs 
in this country, which are bad. We have had two special sessions in the 
State of Nevada as a result of health care costs. The Nevada State 
legislature was called into special session twice by the Governor in 
the past 3 years because of the high cost of health care which is 
causing the budget to be out of whack. And it is going on in State 
governments all over the country.
  So we should talk about costs because, if we do not address health 
care costs in America this year or within the next 3 weeks, I really 
feel sorry for the economy of this country in the next decade because I 
do not think we will be willing to address it if we lose this golden 
opportunity.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague. I agree with him.
  What I said is we have to get 100 percent coverage rather than 95 
percent. Senator Mitchell is in a very delicate and difficult 
situation. He has to get votes. He has sounded out our colleagues. He 
has come up with the best bill that he thinks can pass. But I believe 
if we hear from the American public, and they say to us, we want health 
insurance for all Americans--and I will be happy to debate anyone any 
time on that proposition--I think this Senate can do better.
  Finally, Madam President, I want to tell about one woman who 
testified. Senator Kennedy had her come before our committee. I think 
she was from Kentucky or Tennessee, I forget. She works at a Kentucky 
Fried Chicken; works about 30 hours a week at the minimum wage. She has 
no health insurance coverage. For her heart condition she is supposed 
to buy two kinds of medicine, each of which costs about $60 a month, 
for a total of $120 a month.
  She has to choose, because she has to pay rent and other things. This 
is a woman I would guess to be 60 years old. I hope she does not feel 
offended by my guessing her age. But she has to choose between food and 
her heart medicine, and she has chosen food.
  What a terrible tragedy. We can do better in this country. I hope we 
will.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could I ask the Senator just a very brief question?
  First of all, I thank the Senator from Illinois for bringing up that 
case. There was a certain sense of humor in that case. These 
hardworking people have been working all of their lives down there. She 
was divorced. So when asked what was the worst thing that happened to 
her, she said losing her husband was bad, but losing her health 
insurance was the worst thing that happened to her.
  It is an extraordinary person that has worked her whole life 
receiving, at that time, I think about $2.75 an hour, trying to make 
ends meet in this country, and facing these kinds of frustrations.
  I thank the Senator. Senator Reid has put his finger on another very 
important area; as the Senator is also concerned about health care 
costs, what failing to act would mean in terms of the Federal deficit.
  We find that the largest growing programs in Federal spending is the 
growth in Medicare and Medicaid, and if we are not going to be able to 
get a handle--and they are about a quarter of all of the kinds of 
health expenditures we have. Therefore, we are talking about getting a 
handle on the costs. We have to, obviously, deal with those issues.
  I am wondering if the Senator does not feel that the failure of 
taking action has not only the health implications we have talked 
about, and what the impact will be on real people and their lives, on 
children, and on hardworking men and women, people that are playing by 
the rules of the game, working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year trying 
to look out after their family; will the Senator just tell us what his 
sense is of what the result of failing to act on the Federal deficit 
will be, and what that has to do with the terms of economic strength 
and vitality of this Nation and its ability to provide jobs and compete 
internationally and offer a sense of hope to our fellow citizens?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Massachusetts that I serve on the 
Appropriations Committee. In the past 12 years, domestic discretionary 
spending has gone from 25 percent of everything we spend--and domestic 
discretionary spending is for education, research at the National 
Institutes of Health----
  Mr. KENNEDY. These are programs like, for example, the guaranteed 
student loan program, the Pell Grant Program; about $11 billion in the 
NIH in terms of research in cancer and heart programs; even the $400 
billion in legal services to make sure that the neediest people in our 
country are going to be able to get lawyers, to be able to ensure that 
their rights are going to be protected in the court systems. These are 
the kinds of things--and the National Endowment of Humanities and for 
the Arts that provide help and assistance to virtually every community.
  When you are talking about discretionary, it is not just about 
pushing around some other kind of program. These are matters that 
really reach out and have some impact in terms of the people, and to 
mayors and communities, and also to States.
  I did not want to interrupt, but I thought it was important that 
people understand what these programs are.
  Mr. REID. These programs help people. For example, in addition to the 
programs the Senator from Massachusetts mentioned, there is our 
National Park System. We are closing parts of our national parks 
because they are so rundown and deteriorated that we cannot repair 
them. We used to spend 25 percent on domestic discretionary spending. 
It is now down to 12 percent. We finished a conference on energy and 
water dealing with the Bureau of Reclamation and programs of that 
nature. These programs are being cut to the heart, programs that help 
people all over this country.
  So why are these programs being so impacted? Our friends from the 
other side of the aisle--continually, I hear them say we have to do 
something about entitlements. Well, over 80 percent of entitlement 
spending is for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. We are not 
going to do anything about Social Security. We will have the 
entitlement commission's meeting, and there will be changes made, 
perhaps. But the bulk of the changes they are talking about are in 
health care programs. Why? Because the cost is escalating.
  I have here a chart that shows that the United States spends far more 
on health care than any other country. When I say ``far more'' than any 
other country, I mean there is not a close second. Look at this chart. 
In the United States we spend almost $3,000. The next is Germany down 
to $1,600. We may not like the health care that is delivered in the 
United Kingdom, but look at the pittance they spend.
  So the question I answer is that health care has everything to do 
with the deficit. It has everything to do with the deficit--not only 
the Federal deficit, but in State and local governments.
  Madam President, under the order now standing, I ask unanimous 
consent to be recognized in my own right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.
  Mr. REID. The challenge has been provided to us here tonight--the 
challenge of health care for the American people; the citizens of this 
Nation. Our constituents, we believe must be provided with affordable, 
quality health care that is always there, whether they change jobs, get 
sick, or become disabled. Today's system is rigged against American 
families and small businesses.
  Every month, Madam President, 2 million Americans lose their health 
coverage, and 100,000 of those 2 million will never get it back. We 
talk about universal coverage. This bill we are going to debate next 
week gets us to 95 percent, and we are going up. I think we 
realistically have to understand we are never going to get 100 percent. 
They do not have it in Hawaii; they have 98 percent. Even with Social 
Security here in America, which has been in existence for 60 years, it 
is only 98 percent. But we are on the road to virtually having 
everybody covered. That is the way it should be if we do something with 
this legislation. If we do not, the number of those insured will 
continually go down. Now we are down to maybe 82 or 83 percent 
coverage. The uninsured is going up and up. The sad part about it, 
Madam President, is that the uninsured are not people who are not 
working. Sixty percent of the uninsured are working people.
  Health care costs have shot up more than 400 percent in the past 
decade; in 10 years, they have gone up over 400 percent. It is easy to 
say those words. It is hard to understand what they mean, because we 
are talking about escalating costs, not in hundreds, not in thousands, 
not in millions, not in billions, but in trillions of dollars. Next 
year, America will spend $1 trillion in health care costs.
  By the end of this decade, the cost of our family health care will 
double--a 100-percent increase for each family. The yearly cost--as 
indicated by the senior Senator from Rhode Island--for every American 
family by the year 2000 will be $15,000. Bureaucratic red tape is a big 
villain. For small businesses with fewer than five employees, 
administrative costs consume over 40 cents of every dollar. Insurance 
companies employ 2.4 million people, more people than are working for 
the entire Federal Government.
  I talked to a Las Vegas orthopedic surgeon today, and he said, 
``Harry, I am tired of being told what I can do or cannot do by some 
clerk from an insurance company.'' Major medical decisions are not 
being made by the medical profession anymore; they are being made by 
some clerk working for some insurance company. That is what this health 
care debate is all about. It is not about the scare tactics that have 
been propounded by the insurance industry by spending millions and 
millions of dollars on radio and television. It is about making health 
care affordable to the American public so that small businesses can 
afford to have health insurance for their employees.
  The entire country of Canada, our sister nation, employs fewer 
administrators for its entire health care system than does the State of 
Massachusetts Blue Cross program. The whole State of Canada has fewer 
employees administering health care than the State of Massachusetts 
Blue Cross program, which covers 2.7 million people.
  Despite all these facts, some say there is still no health care 
crisis. Madam President, there is a health care crisis. I did not know 
1\1/2\ years ago of the depth of the health care crisis, but I have 
learned what the health care crisis is about by meeting people from the 
State of Nevada.
  The State of Nevada is no different than the rest of the country. I 
frankly wish it were, but it is not, and that scares me.
  I have met, for example, a woman by the name of Erin Dowell. I met 
her first here in Washington. She came here to testify about the 
extraordinary cost of her health care. She was here to talk about her 
health care costs being almost $\1/2\ million, a 27-year-old woman, who 
was a cosmetologist. She fell and was injured. She became part of the 
State of Nevada industrial insurance system and her industrial injury 
was taken care of. But by the time she got this industrial accident 
taken care of, she had lost her health insurance. She had no health 
insurance. Then this young woman got leukemia, a disease from which my 
father-in-law died.
  She was one of those people who was caught between the rocks. She 
could not turn anywhere for help. She was sick. She eventually--and I 
say eventually, because it took a long time--qualified for Medicare 
coverage. But during the period of time, Madam President, that she was 
trying to find what nook and cranny she fit in, she qualified for a 
bone marrow transplant, and she had a perfect match, but the health 
care providers could not get it worked out in time. By the time they 
were ready, she had had a condition where her leukemia had flared up 
again. It exacerbated. They could not do the transplant.
  I saw her here in Washington, a vivacious, pretty 27-year-old woman. 
I saw her less than a month later in Reno, NV. She was real sick. I 
went to her home and visited with her. I could not tell if she was the 
same person. She was hopeful then. She said maybe I can get better and 
maybe they can do the transplant.
  Well, Erin has given up. Erin is not going to take anymore 
chemotherapy. She cannot take anymore of it in her own mind. She said 
all she has left is hope and $1 million in medical bills.
  I have learned, Madam President, that there are lots of Erin Dowells, 
and that is too bad but there are. But I also learned--I am not going 
to give any more examples of the learning that I have had in this area 
dealing with individuals. But I am going to talk about a small, 
nonprofit agency in Nevada that served the Hispanic community and had 
23 employees. They were all low waged. The highest wage they paid was 
$4.50 an hour. They had willing employees because they felt they were 
doing the right thing for their community, and in addition to the 
$4.50, they had health insurance.
  Well, came time to renew their health insurance and you know what 
happened? No thanks. The insurance company will not renew. Why? Because 
they had preexisting disabilities? What were they? Two pregnancies and 
another had diabetes.
  I recently started wearing glasses and my Las Vegas ophthalmologist 
as I was leaving the office asked to speak with me. He said: ``Harry, I 
have 27 employees. I was just told by my insurance company they are not 
going to rewrite my policy and I had my office manager check around. I 
cannot get anybody to rewrite it. Why? Because one of the 27 got cancer 
during the past year.''
  I went to a radio station for an interview. Someone I knew for many, 
many years he was interviewing. He was not interviewing me. He worked 
at the radio station. He said: ``Harry, can I talk to you.'' I sat down 
and talked to this man. He did not cry. I felt like crying. Here is a 
man who said his wife has 18 months to live. He makes $13,000 a year at 
that radio station. They offered to give him raises and a promotion. He 
cannot take it because he would be making too much money and it would 
cancel out his public assistance for his wife who has 18 months to 
live.
  We are talking about individuals, nonprofit agencies, a doctor with a 
thriving practice, a prominent ophthalmologist in Las Vegas, and 
talking about a poor man whose wife has 18 months to live, and we are 
saying there is no health care crisis?
  This is a crisis. It is robbing individuals of their dignity. These 
are not isolated cases.
  You know, Madam President, I do not know if Erin Dowell is a Democrat 
or Republican. I have never asked her. I do not know if my 
ophthalmologist friend is a Democrat or Republican. I never asked him. 
I do not know that the people that work at that nonprofit agency 
dealing with the Hispanic community are Democrats or Republicans. We 
can take a vote and I do not know who would be the most. I do not know 
whether my friend who works at the radio station is a Democrat or 
Republican. You see, sickness, disease, and bad luck strikes Democrats 
and Republicans alike.
  I think that it is a crying shame for Erin's sake and the sake of 
others in America that we are making this a political issue. This 
should be the high point of my congressional career, to be able to 
participate in a debate dealing with making health care affordable and 
dealing with the economic crisis that faces Americans as a result of 
the health care crisis--the costs of it. But it is not. It has become a 
nitpicking, partisan debate, and that is too bad. We must have health 
care reform.
  The majority leader has offered to this body, to my State, to this 
country a fine start. Our end goal is quality, affordable, accessible 
health care for all Americans where we can have portable health 
insurance policies, take care of preexisting conditions, provide 
prescription drugs for seniors, improve long-term care, and achieve 
cost containment generally to help the kids without insurance.
  This is a historic time in our Nation. We should be working together. 
I think we can reach these goals. If Congress can keep a reform bill 
moving forward which seeks to provide health security for all 
Americans, it will be one of the most significant accomplishments in 
the history of this Nation. We should draw together and realize that 
people who get sick and are hurt or are injured and, I repeat, have bad 
luck--we do not know whether they are Democrats or Republicans, and we 
should not, and that is how we should approach this legislation.
  I call upon my friends on the other side of the aisle to come forward 
and work with us and bring health care reform to this country.

                          ____________________