[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 111 (Thursday, August 11, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, earlier today, my distinguished colleague 
from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, made remarks on the Senate floor in 
which he asserted that my chart of the Mitchell health care reform bill 
incorrectly characterized three provisions.
  As you can imagine, Mr. President, the task of summarizing and 
categorizing a 1,410-page bill is both arduous and complex. I have 
taken every precaution to ensure the validity of this chart and its 
predecessors and welcome constructive suggestions.
  In the debate over health care reform legislation, it is vitally 
important that the public have all the facts. That is the inspiration 
behind the charts my office has prepared. To ensure that the public has 
all the facts, I want to address the three boxes on the chart called 
into question today by Senator Daschle.
  First, Senator Daschle stated that guaranty funds exist currently and 
implied that the Mitchell bill does not create new functions or 
requirements regarding such funds. I disagree. My chart lists the 
guaranty funds provision in section 1505 as new because under the 
Mitchell bill, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services (section 
1442) and Labor (section 1482) must establish new standards for such 
guaranty funds. Further, the bill requires States to establish two 
separate guaranty funds, one for community-rated plans and one for 
self-insured plans. Each of the 50 States does not currently have a 
guaranty fund. Therefore, the chart correctly reflects a new State 
function and new standards mandated at the Federal level.
  Second, Senator Daschle also stated that the box labeled ``Standard 
Health Plan Sponsor'' reflects existing law, not new requirements. Once 
again, I believe that the chart accurately portrays the new 
requirements contained in the Mitchell bill. The term ``standard health 
plan'' is a new concept established and defined (section 1011(2)(B)) in 
the Mitchell bill. The bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to establish rules for States to follow in establishing 
procedures and methods to assure that standard health plan sponsors 
offer equal opportunity for enrollment (Sec. 1111(b)(3)(C)). I believe 
that section 1111 should be characterized as new because there are no 
standard health plan sponsors under existing law; the term has not 
become law yet. And, the provisions requires the Secretary and States 
to promulgate new regulations requiring oversight of standard health 
plan sponsors.
  I do agree, however, with Senator Daschle's statement that the box 
describing the ERIS Enforcement Mechanism contained in section 1485 
should not be labeled as completely new. The Secretary of Labor 
currently has authority to enforce certain provisions of ERISA. I 
understand that this provision expands his existing authority, and does 
not create a new entity or function. My chart is being corrected 
accordingly.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, this one small change does not detract 
from the chart's stated purpose. I believe it continues to demonstrate 
clearly to the American public the overwhelming expansion of Government 
that the Mitchell bill proposes.

                          ____________________