[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 108 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
               HEALTH CARE, CRIME AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Schenk). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston] is recognized for 15 minutes as the minority 
leader's designee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I wanted to talk about the health care 
bill and the crime bill and also the so-called religious right tonight, 
but I wanted to talk first, to sort of reiterate what the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] was talking about on the importance of 
reading bills.
  Before coming to Congress, I served in the State legislature. One of 
the jokes we would have is the old line about what makes people think 
that elected officials read the bills. With that, we would sometimes 
read bills that were maybe 15, 20 pages long, but often if a bill was 
40 or 50 pages long, it did not get read and you relied on the word of 
one of your comrades and friends on the committee.
  Up here, I have found that no one ever reads any of the bills. Here 
is a bill right here that has to do with the District of Columbia. We 
voted on that. It is actually the conference report. We will be voting 
on the conference report today. Here is one on the Federal Aviation 
Administration authorization. That bill looks like it is about 90 pages 
long. Here is another one that has to do with the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration. It is 70 pages long. Generally when we are 
here, people do not have the time to read the bill because we have 
constituents in our offices and so forth, so we are often summarizing 
these bills and making our yes or no decisions based on 3 or 4 lines 
which our colleagues on the floor tell us.
  Having said that, let me show the Clinton health care bill which was 
introduced earlier this session. This bill is 1,364 pages long. It 
talks about everything from the Department of Labor to shots, to your 
family doctor, to baselines, to premium determinations, to alliances, 
and so forth. This is a lengthy bill and regardless of how smart you 
are, how earnest you are, how much time you have, a Member of Congress 
would not have time to absorb a bill like this between now and next 
Friday when we are scheduled to vote. This bill right here, the Clinton 
bill, it has simply been rewritten under the Gephardt name. It is now 
the Gephardt-Clinton bill. But we do not have it yet. Unlike the 
original Clinton version, we have it, we had time to read it and so did 
the American people and that is why this bill is dead. Under the 
Clinton-Gephardt bill, there is a not a bill in our hands, so we have 
not been able to read it yet. I want to, and I think 434 other Members 
of Congress, or at least a number of them, want to be able to go home 
and say, ``Yes, I've read the bill; my staff and I have divided it up; 
we've researched it out, and we want to know what you feel about it,'' 
particularly the health care providers back home. I think that as a 
Member of Congress that we have that right and more importantly we have 
that duty.

  I do have some summaries of the Clinton-Gephardt bill and there are a 
couple of things that I wanted to mention. One of them, of course, it 
the cigarette tax increase that is going up to 45 cents a pack to help 
pay for it. As I recall earlier, we were talking a dollar a pack and 
that would only raise $12 billion to $16 billion a year. This Clinton 
bill cost about $400 billion over 5 years. I am sure that the Clinton-
Gephardt bill is going to be very expensive, too. I can say this. 
Forty-five cents on cigarettes is not going to do anything to pay for 
the bill. It also has a 2-cent tax on insurance policies. I am not sure 
how that is going to work.
  Then it talks about Medicaid and Medicare savings. What I am reminded 
of as I read this summary on how the Clinton-Gephardt health care bill 
is going to be paid for is the first or second chapter in the book 
Agenda, which is about the Clinton administration and it was written is 
about the Clinton administration and it was written by the journalist 
Woodward, who went around with them and he was talking about during the 
campaign, Ira Magaziner wanted to make health care part of the Clinton 
plan, the economic plan, but they were all in disagreement on how much 
it would cost, and they argued for months and months and finally 
decided to just not talk about costs when they got to health care.
  I would submit, as a Member of Congress, that the administration, as 
well as the 435 Members of Congress, are still confused as to how much 
health care reform is going to cost, just as the Clinton campaign 
committee was. Do not take my word for it. Read the book. It is on 
newsstands everywhere, as they say.
  My second point. Cost containment. Price controls will be in effect 
January 1, 2001. Here is a letter that was written to the President on 
March 16, 1994. It is signed by 565 economists from 50 States on health 
care reform. It is written to the President and it says basically: 
``Dear Mr. President: Price controls produce shortages, black markets, 
and reduce quality. Your health care bill will cause these things.''

  I was scanning it and noticed I actually knew two of the professors, 
Dr. Richard Timberlake from the University of Georgia and Dr. Albert 
Danielson. I had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Danielson and Dr. 
Timberlake most of my life and had a course under Danielson. These are 
not political activist guys. These are people who have a sincere 
interest in the economy of the United States and they are very 
concerned. It says here that ``caps, fee schedules and other Government 
regulations may appear to reduce medical spending but such gains are 
not so.''
  It does not actually work out that way in the long run. I think if 
you look at the caliber of the people who have written this open letter 
to the President, you can see that it is not a partisan contest here. 
There is genuine concern. I think it is the right of the American 
people to know what is in the Clinton-Gephardt bill. I do not think 
that we should all be held captive in Washington during the next 10 
days so that this thing can be rammed through the Congress.
  Let me read a letter, though, that I think says it best, from a 
constituent back home, a lady named Mrs. Helen Carpenter:
  ``Dear sir.'' She is not one of my volunteers.
  ``Dear sir.'' It is not like she is preaching to the converted or 
anything like that:

       Thank you for your health care reform action and staying in 
     touch on it. First of all, this is supposed to be a free 
     country.
       Number 1. I object to more Government regulation.
       Number 2. I do not want the Federal Government to make any 
     decisions for me.
       Number 3. I believe health care delivery should be private.
       Number 4. Government cannot do a better job than what we 
     have now.
       Number 5. To date the Government has cut waste, so to date 
     they cannot give a better package.
       Number 6. Price controls have never worked in the past and 
     will never work in the future.
       Number 7--

  This is very important, Madam Speaker:

     The government will not give the people more security unless 
     we enjoy losing more of our freedoms.
       I am 83 years old. I have lived through World War I, World 
     War II, Korea, Vietnam, and many, many other brushfires I 
     can't recall. I grew up in a free country and I want it to 
     stay that way. I have no trust in the current Congress to do 
     the right thing.

                              {time}  1950

  This is the real stuff. This is not some Republican sound bite which 
Haley Barbour came up with. This is the concern of the American people.
  I would just say this, if you think Members of Congress can look at a 
bill this big and decide within the next day what is best for America, 
when most Members of Congress cannot even tell you the difference 
between compensatory and noncompensatory damages, much less community 
rating systems, then I think it is time to sit back, and let us all 
take off the partisan labels and try to do what is best for America.
  Having said that, I want to talk quickly about the crime bill. As the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] also pointed out, we do not have 
a crime bill right now, even though we are going to vote on one any day 
now, we still do not have a bill. I guess, again, I am old-fashioned, 
and I join the Members of Congress who like to read bills before they 
vote.
  I thought the aim is to put 100,000 new police officers on the 
street, but it only pays for 20,000 of them. I want to read that and 
find out about that. Sheriffs and police chiefs want me to know this.
  I understand there is about $9 billion in new social programs such as 
midnight basketball and councils to promote arts and crafts, and dance, 
and self-esteem programs. I know these will go on top of what we 
already spend, which is $24 billion on such social programs. We have 
over 154 different type of programs, and 50 of them are trying to 
prevent crime in the way that we are talking about in the crime bill. I 
want to read about this. It is not too much to ask. I represent 589,000 
people. They want me to read bills before I vote on them.
  There is no crime bill at this point for me to read. I think that is 
absolutely atrocious.
  I understand also of the $9 to $10 billion in social programs in the 
crime bill that it is not earmarked. That is to say that the Attorney 
General or the President could dole these things out to Members of 
Congress who have been supportive of his administration, of his bills. 
This $9 billion will be doled out in an election year as political 
payoffs. That is the way we are doing to fight crime? I thought that 
this President and this Congress was serious about crime fighting. I 
did not know it was just going to be more partisan politics.
  Madam Speaker, let me leave crime for a minute and move on to the 
religious right, because recently someone asked me is the religious 
right going to be a factor in the November election. I would say yes 
for three reasons.
  No. 1, the so-called religious right has all kinds of able 
lieutenants. It is not just the domain of the Jerry Falwells anymore, 
but you have a lot of a younger crop of people who know how to win, and 
do not mind getting out there and really fighting--such people as a 
Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer, Sudie Hirshman, and Heidi Scandle, true 
political leadership.
  No. 2, the religious right shall not be called the religious right 
anymore. They should be called the mainstream value coalition because 
they are not just about abortion anymore. Yes, many of them are still 
very, maybe mostly oriented on social/religious issues, but in fact 
many of these mainstream values groups have moved on to the balanced 
budget amendment, term limitations, the line-item veto. These are 
issues about 60 to 70 percent of the American public agree on, and as a 
result the so-called religious right, which I would say is more the 
mainstream values coalition, has in its membership not just Christians 
from the suburbs, but inner city African-Americans, Jewish members of 
our community, all religions are represented in it. It is a broad-based 
constituency.
  Finally, No. 3, the reason why I think they are going to be very much 
a factor in November is that they are ticked off. They have seen time 
and time again what Government has done. And I do not blame it 
completely on this administration, although this administration has 
certainly had a heyday with it. Think about what this administration 
has done though. The EEOC regulations outlawing, trying to ban 
religious symbols in the workplace. You are going to tell a guy who is 
maybe a Vietnam graduate, or maybe Granada, or from Desert Storm who 
comes to work with a Star of David or a Jesus Saves shirt on, are you 
going to tell the guy that he cannot wear that, the reason that he wore 
the uniform and fought overseas and risked his life, and that he no 
longer has that first amendment freedom? I think that is ridiculous, 
yet the current administration, that is what they want to do. And many 
Members of Congress, on a bipartisan basis, fought that, and I am glad 
they did.
  We have HUD that is going out banning nursing homes from using 
religious symbols in the Yellow Pages ads. Come off it. Do you guys not 
have anything better to do?
  We have weakening of child pornography laws from the Justice 
Department. We have regulation of home schooling, we have all of this 
on top of a Surgeon General who decides that the big problem in the 
world today is the religious right and not Government.
  This is a page right out of George Orwell, Madam Speaker. I think 
that the American people have had enough.
  So I think for those reasons we have religious groups who are now 
mainstream groups, who have a broad-based constituency and know how to 
win, and yes, they will be a factor in November.

                          ____________________