[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
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]

 
                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in the next few weeks, Congress--at the 
President's behest--may determine for all time not only the 
availability, but the quality of health care in America. The magnitude 
of this undertaking is so immense, the risks so consequential, and the 
potential for doing harm to a system that, with all its imperfections, 
remains the envy of the world is so evident that it should humble us 
all.
  I have no doubt that every member--in both houses and on all sides of 
the debate--is motivated to act by the very best of intentions. But 
neither the nobility of the cause nor the sincerity of its advocates 
necessitates our careless disregard for the axiom of governance that 
our past experiences have shown to be the most sound principle for 
organizing the affairs of a great nation: the least government 
involvement practical is preferable.
  Alexis de Tocqueville, to whose wise observances we often turn for 
insights about our national character, illuminated the pivotal 
importance of a minimally intrusive government to the success of 
democracy in America by envisioning the relationship between government 
and the governed in the event that democracy failed in America. He 
wrote:

       [Government] will be an immense and tutelary power, which 
     takes upon itself to secure [the people's] gratifications, 
     and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, 
     regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority 
     of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to 
     prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to 
     keep them in perpetual childhood. For their happiness such a 
     government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole 
     agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for 
     their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, 
     facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal 
     concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of 
     their property, and subdivides their inheritances. What 
     remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all 
     the trouble of living?

  From the outset of the health care debate, I have adhered to a set of 
principles that I believe are essential to constructive reform of our 
health care system. Reform should maintain the high quality of American 
health care; expand access for those who are currently excluded from 
the system; allow those who have insurance to keep it if they become 
ill or lose their job; preserve choice and strengthen security for all 
Americans. The distinguished Majority Leader's bill, which we are now 
considering, does not meet these criteria for a number of reasons which 
I will detail in subsequent debate.
  But it is that first principle of governance, that the least 
government involvement practical is preferable, and which I believe the 
Majority Leader's bill seriously violates, that forms the basis of my 
opposition to Senator Mitchell and the President's approach to health 
care reform.
  Let me briefly explain why. The new taxes and employer mandates 
proposed by Senator Mitchell and the President will be used to finance 
an enormous Government takeover of the health care system. They will 
pay for a huge new entitlement program that will subsidize at least 100 
million people--almost half of the country. Subsidies would be 
available to some families with incomes up to 300 percent of the 
poverty line. Families of four with income of $44,000 would be entitled 
to a subsidy.
  Additionally, the bill creates three other new entitlement programs 
at an estimated cost of $172 billion, including Medicare prescription 
drugs, a new long-term care program and a new government-run medical 
education program funded by a tax on all health insurance plans.
  Under Senator Mitchell's plan, at least 20 new bureaucracies will be 
created. They include: the National Health Care Cost and Coverage 
Commission; the National Health Benefits Board; State health insurance 
purchasing cooperatives; Federal health insurance purchasing 
cooperatives established by OPM; a National Quality Council; a Worker's 
Compensation Commission; a National Council on Graduate Medical 
Education; State Consumer Information and Advocacy Centers; Quality 
Improvement Foundations; a National Guarantee Fund for Multi-State 
Self-Insured Plans; State guaranteed funds; a Biomedical and Health 
Services Research Fund; and mandatory State alternative dispute 
resolution.
  The President and Senator Mitchell's plan imposes substantial new 
Government regulation. In addition to the employer mandate, it would 
impose a complicated new tax on health plans whose premiums increase 
faster than the Government allows. It will operate in a manner similar 
to price controls. The plan also bans self-insurance for firms with 
fewer than 500 employees, and imposes a standard benefits package which 
limits consumer choice.
  In short, Mr. President, for those of us who worry about excessive 
Government interference in one of the most personal decisions any 
American will ever make--choosing health care for his or her family--
there is a great deal for us to be concerned about in the President's 
and Senator Mitchell's health care plan.
  I do not question the motives of the proponents of this plan. I am 
confident that theirs is a principled advocacy motivated by a belief 
that a huge Government role is necessary to reform those aspects of our 
health care system which we all agree need to be reformed. Again, I do 
not question anyone's motives. I only question their solution.
  Likewise, ours is a principled opposition based, as I have said, in 
our profound skepticism about new and expansive Government activism in 
regulating America's health care system. As the debate on health care 
reform proceeds, much discussion will be focused by necessity on many 
arcane and complex aspects of various reform proposals. But we should 
not lose sight, Mr. President, that at the core of this debate is a 
fundamental disagreement about the extent of Government involvement 
that is necessary to make a good system better.
  That is, in the end, most of what this debate is all about. And I 
deeply resent attempts by proponents of the President's approach to 
ascribe all manner of devious and nefarious motives to opponents of the 
President's plan. Again, this is a principled disagreement. We 
opponents believe just as sincerely in our plan to reform America's 
health care system, as the President, First Lady and their allies in 
the Congress believe in their plan.
  Last week, the distinguished majority leader appealed to all Senators 
to avoid casting aspersions on the intentions of any one involved in 
this historic debate, on either side, and to keep partisan bickering to 
a bare minimum; that the issue was too important and the moment too 
consequential to be settled through personal attacks and political 
posturing. I could not agree more.
  Yet, I would have hoped that the majority leader's plea would have 
been heard on both sides of the aisle, at both ends of Pennsylvania 
Avenue. Apparently, that was not the case.
  Today, our Democratic colleagues denied Senator Helms' request to 
vitiate the yeas and nays on an amendment which he proposed. If there 
was anything other than a political motive for opposing his unanimous-
consent request it was not apparent to me.
  Yesterday, the First Lady, Mrs. Clinton, was reported to have 
described opponents of the President's plan as a ``small core of 
people'' who want to prevent America from being a ``compassionate and 
caring nation.'' She went on to apparently link those with different 
views on health care reform from hers to efforts to inject ``hatred * * 
* into our political system.'' Lastly, she questioned the motives of 
one of our colleagues by name.
  I would point out to the First Lady, that in every poll I have seen, 
the American people also oppose the President's health care plan. Does 
this mean that the majority of Americans lack compassion or are morally 
bankrupt?
  I find the First Lady's unfair and unfounded characterization of our 
intentions to be entirely inappropriate, deeply offensive, and certain 
to undermine the majority leader's attempt to conduct the debate on 
health care in a respectful and informative manner.
  No one in this town has cornered the market on compassion--no one. We 
are all moved by the many compelling personal stories that are often 
recounted to argue for one view or another in this debate. Americans 
share a great many concerns. We all have families. We all suffer 
anxieties about their welfare. We are all sympathetic to the anxieties 
of others. The ability to appreciate the pain of human suffering is not 
a virtue unique to the President's character.
  Just like the President, the First Lady, and our Democrat colleagues, 
Republicans elected to Federal office came to this town with the 
intention of doing right by their constituents and their country. We 
are just as sincere in wanting to leave this good and blessed Nation 
better than we found it. We all believe in progress. We disagree over 
means, but not ends.
  I find it most unfortunate to be obliged to remind the White House 
that what occurred in January, 1993 was that Bill Clinton was 
inaugurated the 42d President of the United States. What did not occur 
was the arrival of a morally superior force of public servants 
determined to save the country from a small core of cold-hearted 
evildoers bent on frustrating the President's attempts to make America 
a more compassionate Nation.
  I hope the First Lady's attack yesterday will be the last time this 
debate is marred by White House efforts to turn a principled debate 
about the proper role of government in one-seventh of our Nation's 
economy into some cosmic struggle between good and evil. Such tactics 
do a grave disservice to the President, to Congress and to the American 
people who, quite rightly, want this debate to be enlightening and 
conducted with the respect and fair-mindedness appropriate to a 
decision of such profound consequences for their well-being.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  I ask unanimous consent the pending committee amendment be set aside 
for the purpose of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arizona withdraw his 
request for the call of the roll?
  Mr. McCAIN. I withdraw my request for the quorum call and maintain my 
right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does continue to have the floor. 
The Senator from Arizona.

                          ____________________