[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 20, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     WHY NOT LET THE ELECTIONS BECOME A REFERENDUM ON HEALTH CARE?

                                 ______


                           HON. NEWT GINGRICH

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 20, 1994

  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit into the Record an 
editorial published in the Christian Science Monitor recently that I 
believe sums up the question on many minds. ``With such fundamental 
questions unanswered, why shouldn't lawmakers slow down and solicit an 
essential view--that of their constituents?''

                  [From the Christian Science Monitor]

                             Slow Is Better

       This week's hyperactivity in the Senate continues the 
     impression that there is a health-care crisis to which 
     lawmakers are valiantly seeking a solution.
       But the assumptions of a ``crisis'' and a near-at-hand 
     ``solution'' should be reassessed.
       Clearly, reform is needed. Those seeking medical treatment 
     should not fear that they will lose their life savings for 
     lack of insurance. Universal access to health coverage is 
     needed. Allowing insurers to deny policies to those with 
     preexisting medical conditions is not an element of a just 
     and compassionate society. Workers who change employers, an 
     ever-more-frequent occurrence in our volatile workplace, 
     should not lose coverage. And some means must be found to 
     contain health-care costs if they are not to crowd out all 
     else and ruin the American economy.
       But right now the public seems to view these problems less 
     as a ``crisis'' than as a chronic problem needing a 
     thoughtful solution. Ironically, the improving economy, for 
     which President Clinton deserves his share of credit, means 
     fewer Americans fear losing their jobs and hence losing 
     coverage.
       It thus becomes a political ploy when the Clinton 
     administration creates an air of desperation surrounding 
     health reform and seeks to enact legislation--seemingly any 
     legislation--in the 84 days remaining until the November 
     congressional elections.
       Why not let the elections become a referendum on health 
     care? The debate would then get the wide hearing it deserves; 
     voters could send lawmakers back to Washington who represent 
     their current feelings. Next spring, Congress could act 
     unimpinged by the political constraints of an impending 
     election.
       The current frantic atmosphere is not conductive to careful 
     reform. The House awaits the Senate. The Senate still seeks 
     dollar figures from a badly overburdened Congressional Budget 
     Office to plug into its bills. No single bill seems close to 
     gaining a consensus. Lobbyists are making unprecedented 
     efforts to bend bills to their interests. Will there be time 
     to uncover and examine these? New bills seem to spring forth 
     daily, while the plan offered by Senate majority leader 
     George Mitchell changes like a chameleon.
       Do Americans really want a new government-run health plan 
     or, more simply, a reform of the private health-insurance 
     industry? With such fundamental questions unanswered, why 
     shouldn't lawmakers slow down and solicit an essential view--
     that of their constituents?

                          ____________________