[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                              ERISA REFORM

  Mrs. MURRAY. I am deeply disappointed that this bill was objected to 
and therefore not allowed to be enacted this year. Let me take a minute 
to explain briefly the purpose of this bill.
  It waives sections of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 
known as ERISA, to allow the 1993 Washington Health Services Act to 
cover workers in self-insured companies. Without the ERISA waiver, some 
40 percent of Washington's work force will remain outside my State's 
comprehensive health reform law.
  Mr. President, last month, this Congress failed to pass national 
health reform legislation. Those who succeeded in killing national 
health reform have now turned their sights on State reform. Today, by 
objecting to this bill, Congress has fired its first shot directly at 
the heart of Washington State's landmark health reform legislation.
  The people of Washington have worked for more than a decade to enact 
a comprehensive health reform law. We passed in April 1993, and we are 
moving ahead. But today, people who do not live in my State, and who do 
not represent my State, are trying to kill Washington's health reform 
law. They are trying to tell the people of my State what we can and 
cannot do in health reform.
  People in my State from Spokane to Seattle, from Walla Walla to 
Bellingham, have told me they want State health reform to move ahead. 
They want flexibility from Federal laws so we can control soaring 
health care costs. They want flexibility so no one can be denied 
coverage because of preexisting condition. They want flexibility so 
they can have a choice of affordable plans.
  The people of Washington have also told me what they do not want. 
They do not want health care costs to continue to eat up ever larger 
portions of their household income or our State budget. They do not 
want to have to divert scarce State dollars away from education, the 
environment and transportation to pay for rising health insurance 
premiums. And they certainly do not want outsiders and special 
interests in this Washington to undo our State laws.
  My State enacted a comprehensive health care reform law 18 months 
ago. And it is working. We have insurance market reforms. We are aiming 
for universal coverage by 1999, including a start on long-term care. We 
are finalizing a standard benefits package, and a 50/50 employer/
employee cost sharing that begins a phase-in next July. We have caps on 
insurance premiums. Even if we reduce insurance premium growth by just 
1 percentage point over the next 10 years, Washington's businesses will 
save one billion dollars.
  The ability for my State to proceed with this reform depends on 
whether Federal law gives us the flexibility to do so. Hawaii has had a 
similar system in place for more than 20 years. Oregon is not far 
behind Washington. Several other States, like Florida, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, and New York, have reforms of their own.
  If we deny our States the latitude to move ahead, Congress will do 
more than simply deny States rights. Congress will have failed to 
recognize ingenuity. But more importantly, Congress will have killed 
the very initiatives that are the best models for national reform.
  In the absence of national health reform, it is the States that will 
lead the way. Preventing my State of Washington from implementing a law 
we passed in April 1993 is surely one more way the special interests 
have found to kill any reform. They want the status quo in this 
Washington, and they want to undo the pioneering reform in my home 
State of Washington.
  A key part of the debate over State flexibility involves ERISA. The 
question I keep coming back to is: Whom does ERISA really protect?
  The title of the law is deceptive. ERISA was meant to protect 
employee pension plans. And, it does--through a detailed series of 
standards and enforcement mechanisms. But ERISA covers employee 
benefits, and that means all benefits, including vacation, day care, 
health, and life insurance.
  Simply stated, ERISA prevents States from establishing any health 
standards for self-insured companies. Workers in these companies may 
enjoy health insurance now, but under our State health reform they will 
soon fall behind without an ERISA waiver. For example, while premiums 
of those outside self-insured companies will be capped, their neighbors 
in self-insured companies may watch their premiums continue to soar.
  Unless we obtain an ERISA waiver, those in self-insured companies 
will be locked into the only plan offered by their employer. Everyone 
else under our State reform will enjoy a choice of plan. I want 
everyone in my State to benefit from additional reforms.
  The bottom line is: ERISA does not provide real consumer protection. 
It does not provide consumer choice. Employees in self-insured 
companies will be locked into the status quo.
  Without an ERISA waiver, what happens to the employee in a self-
insured company who gets cancer and has his health insurance dropped? 
What happens to the employee in a self-insured company who wants more 
than one choice of health plan? What happens to the employee in a self-
insured company who sees her rates doubled because another employee has 
a traumatic accident?
  Where does these employees turn for help?
  They cannot turn to the State insurance commissioner because she has 
no authority to help them. They cannot turn to the Department of Labor 
that oversees ERISA because there are no Federal procedures to help 
them. There is nowhere they can turn.
  Clearly, ERISA protects the big insurance companies. It does not 
protect the little guy.
  I know, because the Washington Health Services Commission told me 2.5 
million citizens out of 5.2 million --almost half of our population--
will not benefit from my State's important health reforms because of 
ERISA. The State Insurance Commissioner cannot enforce these reforms 
because of ERISA. Once again, the little guy loses out.
  I decided to run for the Senate 2 years ago because I believe the 
little guy should be heard, too. That is what the ERISA debate is all 
about.
  This debate is not about taking anything away from workers. Nor is it 
about taking anything away from large corporations. Most of them do an 
excellent job providing health care for their employees. It is about 
making consumer choice and protection available to all workers. It is 
about containing the soaring cost of health care that consumes an 
increasing share of business profits and household budgets.
  I believe States like Washington should not be prevented from moving 
as fast as we want on the health reform road. We certainly should not 
be punished for trying to improve the health care of our citizens. If 
Washington is not given flexibility to move ahead, we will not only be 
hurting the citizens of my State, but destroying a model for national 
health care reform.
  The chairperson of Washington's Health Services Commission recently 
wrote:

       Rather than caving in to special interests by changing or 
     repealing health reform, it's time for all of us to work 
     together to ensure that what the people asked for is 
     implemented judiciously and fairly throughout the state.

  I am disappointed the special interests in this Washington were able 
to block an ERISA waiver for the people of Washington State. Be assured 
I shall return to fight this battle for the people of my home State 
again next January.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________