[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              GOOD HEALTH CARE POLICY NEEDS BIPARTISANSHIP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, next week this House is scheduled to consider 
the subject of health care reform. Already, the normal August session 
has been extended in order to recognize the reality that the 
legislative counsel--who must draft thousands of pages of legal 
language of all the different health care proposals--and the 
Congressional Budget Office--which must officially score the various 
proposals for their budget impact--simply could not finish their jobs 
before August 12. Unfortunately, I am not sure an extra week will make 
their job any easier. We have already heard that at least one 
individual from the legislative counsel's office fell off his chair, 
soundly asleep from exhaustion.
  More important, not a single Member of Congress will have seen the 
text of the bills upon which we are supposed to vote until just days 
before we are to make our decision on health care. That is a recipe for 
disaster. Mussolini made the trains run on time, but wrecked his 
country. Simply put, under the current schedule, the House of 
Representatives will vote without knowing what it is voting on. On the 
subject of health care, the details are critically important. They 
cannot be glossed over and ignored. With health care, a detail could be 
$10 billion spent wisely or simply wasted. The House should not be 
forced to make a gigantic leap of faith--with America's health care 
system at stake.
  We owe it to the American people to be deliberate and thorough in our 
consideration of health care reform.
  That does not mean I support delay. Where there is consensus, let us 
act now. And on many issues, consensus is widespread. Provisions such 
as insurance reforms--the elimination of preexisting conditions, 
portability, and community rating in some form. There is a consensus 
around the need for subsidies for individuals with low incomes as well 
as for malpractice reform, antifraud, and waste and abuse provisions as 
well as administrative simplification and medical savings accounts. 
There is a consensus for the expansion of community health providers. 
These issues would pass the House today.
  But where there is controversy and confusion, let us debate, 
deliberate, and consult with the people who sent us here. As it is--and 
as rumor has it--many of the most controversial changes do not take 
place for many years. Why should we be so rushed during the 
decisionmaking process when much of what we decide will have no useful 
effect for years?
  I regret that, increasingly, it is no longer health care that is at 
the center of our discussions. A few have forgotten how the wheels of 
health care reform began moving. It was to help these fellow citizens 
who were not covered by some form of health care insurance or who faced 
a situation where their health care insurance would lapse in their time 
of need.
  This debate has now degenerated to the point where egos and power 
grabs have replaced good intentions, where some seem to look for 
political victories instead of good policy. Have we forgotten that the 
American people sent us here not to bicker, but to have a meeting of 
the minds? Not to bicker, but to acknowledge legitimate differences? 
Not to bicker, but to recognize different perspectives and experiences? 
Not to bicker, but to hear informed testimony and gather, weigh, and 
decide among good ideas?
  The American people expect us to put partisanship to the side. On a 
subject as all-encompassing as health care reform, the American people 
expect bipartisanship. Sadly, it is the desire for bipartisan action 
that is missing in terms of the White House and the majority party 
leadership.
  One night in 1993, I mentioned the lack of bipartisanship to the 
President while chatting at a White House function. He said, smiling, 
``If I send a bill up and you vote for it, that makes it bipartisan.'' 
I replied, ``No, Mr. President, that is not bipartisanship. What I mean 
by ``Bipartisanship'' is best reflected by a conversation held between 
a great internationalist, Republican Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, and 
his friend Democratic President Harry S. Truman, when Vandenberg said 
``Mr. President, we want to be in on the takeoffs, not just the crash 
landings.''

  Passage of an unknown and unread bill by the barest of margins along 
strict partisan and ideological lines is unacceptable. It is a crash 
landing. Health Care Reform deserves and requires bipartisan 
cooperation. It deserved that from the beginning.
  I urge the House Democratic leadership to give the subject of health 
care the time it deserves--a proper period of time to study and to 
listen and to debate. Prior to the vote, we should have spent time in 
our constituencies explaining the health care reform proposals we will 
consider. We should hear our constituents and then return to Washington 
to cast our votes on proposals that could affect our Nation more 
dramatically than any law in a generation, after that process, we might 
deal correctly with the very real problems that exist in our health 
care system.
  It is through understanding that we will achieve acceptance, and that 
is a precondition for health care reform that will be applauded by the 
American people. It is not too late for this Chamber and the House 
leadership to allocate a proper period of time for consideration of 
health care reform. There is more than sufficient time left in this 
congressional session to pass a thoroughly understood and debated bill. 
Let us take the time to do it right.
  Mr. Speaker, I attach a chart prepared by my colleague, Peter 
Hoekstra (R-Michigan). It shows the deliberative and consultative 
process which should occur in considering the important subject of 
health care.


                 Health Care Debate--Suggested Timeline

       August 8: Introduction of bills.
       August 9-11: Scheduled walk-through of each bill; 
     Congressional Budget Office scoring due; Rules Committee 
     meets to craft rule for debate.
       August 12: Debate rule (open with requirement that 
     amendments be printed in the Congressional Record at least 24 
     hours in advance of debate).
       August 13: Rule and details finalized before scheduled 
     recess.
       August 13-September 6: Public input and evaluation of 
     proposed legislation; determination of amendments.
       September 8: Amendments due to be printed in Congressional 
     Record.
       September 9: Debate begins (total debate 5-10 days); House 
     votes.
       September 19-26: Conference Committee meets.
       October 5: Final vote in House and Senate.
       October 7: Scheduled adjournment.

                          ____________________