[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 82 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5906-S5907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO BLOCK HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to talk about this issue of naming 
conferees, and about the health care bill itself. I know many people 
think that when we have these little confrontations it is just 
partisanship and that it does not mean anything, but I wanted today to 
take a little time to talk about the real issue here and explain what 
it really means.
  Let me begin by noting that the Senate passed a bill 44 days ago 
which would make health insurance permanent and portable, and which set 
out a procedure to try to make it easier for people to get and keep 
good private health insurance. It was this little bill right here.
  Now, 44 days ago, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, 
tried to appoint conferees to work out the differences between our 
health care reform bill and the health care reform bill that passed the 
House of Representatives, so that both Houses of Congress could then 
bring up and pass a final bill.
  For 44 days, Senator Kennedy has objected, and for 44 days he has 
denied working Americans the following provisions: No 1, an 80-percent 
deduction for health insurance premiums that are paid by the self-
employed. This is a provision which is contained in the bill that we 
passed thanks to an amendment that was written and offered by Senator 
Dole; No 2, the deductibility of long-term health insurance premiums; 
No 3, the ability of people with terminal illnesses, with the 
certification of a physician, to go ahead and collect their life 
insurance--a very important provision for people who have AIDS; No 4, 
State-sponsored high risk insurance pools--that will help low-income 
people who have high medical risks get health insurance in the State 
they reside in; and, finally, No 5, the ability to, on a penalty-free 
basis, draw money out of your IRA's, your individual retirement 
accounts, if you have high health insurance bills. These are things 
that have been agreed to and these are things that, with certainty, 
would happen if we passed this bill. But, for 44 days, the Democrats 
have prevented us from going to conference and working out an agreement 
that would let us pass this bill.

  What does 80 percent deductibility of insurance premiums for the 
self-employed really mean? In the last year for which figures are 
available, there were roughly 3 million Americans who had insurance 
through self-employment. They were allowed a 25 percent tax deduction 
on the cost of that health insurance, even though, if they worked for 
somebody else, it would be 100 percent deductible. So the 3 million 
Americans who work for themselves had to pay 75 percent of their 
insurance premium with after-tax dollars because the Tax Code 
discriminates against the self-employed. Again, in the last year for 
which figures are available, the average self-employed American, in 
buying health insurance, got a deduction of $713. If we had passed this 
bill 44 days ago when we had a chance to go to conference and work out 
our differences, the average American who works for himself would 
ultimately be able to deduct $2,283 for the payment of private health 
insurance premiums. In other words, for over a month now, we have 
delayed over $1,500 of savings to every self-employed worker in 
America.
  In addition, we now have in America over $1 trillion in individual 
retirement accounts or other forms of tax shelter. By allowing that 
money to be used to pay health insurance costs, when those costs exceed 
7.5 percent of your gross adjusted income, we would be liberating $1 
trillion of assets that could be used to help working Americans at a 
time when not only has a rainy day arrived, but it is pouring cats and 
dogs as a result of exploding health insurance costs. Yet we have not 
passed any of these provisions because the Democrats have objected to 
naming conferees. Well, why do we have a filibuster of a bill that the 
Democrats, in huge numbers, support? Why is this happening? That is the 
point I want to address right now.
  The Democrats say they are filibustering this bill because they are 
opposed to medical savings accounts. They are fearful that medical 
savings accounts will be in the final bill since the House of 
Representatives overwhelmingly adopted a provision that would permit 
Americans, who freely choose to set up medical savings accounts, to do 
so on a tax exempt basis--and they object to this.
  It is very interesting to note that this objection is a rather new 
phenomenon. In fact, some of the objectors have, in the past, been some 
of the strongest proponents of medical savings accounts. Let me quote 
Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, who introduced a bill--which 
contained medical savings accounts--with Senator Nunn, Senator Breaux, 
Senator Boren, and others. In a statement related to that bill here is 
what he said: ``We have introduced a bill * * * which would allow 
employers to provide their employees with an annual allowance in a 
'medical care savings account' to pay for routine health care needs.'' 
That was his position 2 years ago.
  Let me quote the Democratic leader in the House, Dick Gephardt, who 
also had a bill which contained medical savings accounts. He said, 
talking about medical savings accounts, ``It's very popular. A lot of 
people like that option and I think it will be in the final bill.'' 
That is the final health care bill. ``I think it is a great option.'' 
This was Dick Gephardt's position on medical savings accounts just 2 
years ago.
  Even the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill endorses the idea of medical savings 
accounts. So why the change of heart? What has happened? The Democrats 
say they discovered that medical savings accounts only help rich 
people.

  Well, let me read you some quotes from some of these supposedly rich 
people who have medical savings accounts. This is an allegedly rich 
person who is the political director of the United Mine Workers in 
Illinois. In writing to Senator Simon he said:

       An amendment to the health care package has been offered to 
     add a medical savings account provision. The United Mine 
     Workers has a similar provision in our current contract that 
     is anticipated to produce significant savings versus our 
     previous insurance.

  Let me read from another rich person who writes on behalf of medical 
savings accounts. This is a part-time bus driver from Danville, OH who 
writes:

       Today I would like to appeal to President Clinton to please 
     support the medical savings account issue. Nearly 3 years ago 
     we went to a medical savings account plan and it has been 
     very helpful.

  Why, all of a sudden, having introduced bills that provided for 
medical savings accounts--why, all of a sudden, are people like Senator 
Daschle and Minority Leader Gephardt and other Democrats in Congress 
now so adamantly opposed to medical savings accounts? Let me tell you 
my theory as to why, all of a sudden, Democrats who have been for 
medical savings accounts in the past are now so adamantly opposed to 
them. I think that the discovery they made is not that medical savings 
accounts are for rich people, but rather their discovery is that 
medical savings accounts give people freedom. They let people choose. 
They empower people. Republicans are not trying to force Americans to 
take medical savings accounts. We just want to allow them to do make a 
choice without discriminating against them in the Tax Code.
  Our Democratic colleagues oppose letting Americans have that choice 
because they do not want Americans to choose their own health care. 
They want Government to choose. They claim they are for this little 
bill, but it is actually this big stack of bills that they support.
  This is what they are for. This is what we have been debating over 
the last 2 years--the Clinton health care bill and all of its 
derivatives. Our Democratic colleagues know that to let people choose 
their own health care means that Government cannot choose it for them. 
The holding up of this bill and their new-found opposition to medical 
savings accounts shows one thing very clearly: the Democrats do not 
want families to choose, they want the Government to choose.
  This little bill is not the health care bill they are for--this big 
stack of bills

[[Page S5907]]

is the health care bill they are for. They really believe that they 
will get this big stack of health care bills someday, but only if they 
do not give people the freedom to choose their own health care.
  So why are we being held up? Why for 44 days have we not named 
conferees on a bill with provisions that virtually everyone says they 
are for? Remember, all 100 Members of the Senate voted for it. The 
reason is that the Democrats do not want people to have the freedom to 
choose their own health care is because their real plan is not to make 
insurance portable and permanent and it is not one that would empower 
people to be efficient in buying health care through medical savings 
accounts. After all, that is what this bill and the House bill are 
trying to do. The bill the Democrats long to get back to is a bill 
which is represented by all of the bills that we wisely rejected last 
year. They want to get back to a bill where the Government, not the 
family, chooses.
  The truly amazing thing is that Senator Kennedy today had a press 
conference attacking Senator Dole for holding up a bill that he, 
Senator Kennedy, has been filibustering for 44 days. For 44 days, 
Senator Kennedy has stood up and objected to naming conferees, and then 
today he attacks Bob Dole for holding up an agreement?
  But why has Senator Kennedy objected? He has objected because he 
rejects the right of people to choose. He rejects the right of 
individual citizens to decide whether they want low-deductible health 
insurance or high-deductible health insurance. Further, he rejects the 
right of those who choose high-deductible health insurance to put the 
savings into a medical savings account which they can use to pay those 
deductibles tax free or which, if they do not use it for that purpose, 
is available to send their children to college, to make a downpayment 
on a new home, or to start a new business. Senator Kennedy and the 
Democrats do not want people to have that right to choose, because deep 
down in their hearts, they want the Government to choose.
  This is the health care plan they are for--it is not the health care 
plan that we debated this year. The Democrats know if we get medical 
savings accounts, if families have an incentive to be cost conscious, 
if families have the right to choose their own health care, that this 
will work, and it would mean that they never get the opportunity to 
have these health care purchasing collectives where Government would 
make the decisions.
  So I simply want to remind my colleagues, when the minority leader or 
Senator Kennedy stands up and objects to naming conferees, what they 
are really objecting to is freedom. They are really objecting to the 
right of people to choose--they do not want people to have a right to 
choose, because they want Government to choose.
  That is what this debate is about. Do you want Government to run the 
health care system, or do you want family choice to dominate the health 
care system?
  To me, that is a very easy question to answer. And let me note the 
difference between what the Democrats are doing this year and what I 
did last year--just in case our colleague from Massachusetts should 
come over and say, ``Well, here is Phil Gramm, he held up the Clinton 
health care bill in 78 days of debate.'' Yes I did. It was God's work 
and I expect to be remembered for it when I get to the golden gates, 
but I never denied it. I never stood up and said, ``This is a great 
bill the President has proposed. These are wonderful ideas. I'm for it, 
but I'm just not going to let you pass it.''

  I said over I am not going to let you pass this, except over my cold, 
dead political body. This is not what Senator Kennedy is saying. 
Senator Kennedy says he is for this bill, yet he is not allowing us to 
name conferees because he does not want people to be free to choose. He 
wants the Government to choose. This is what the debate is about--
freedom--and I wanted to come over today to be sure that people 
understood with certainty what we are talking about. I want them to 
understand that the Republicans want families to choose, the Democrats 
want the Government to choose, and that this is about as big a 
difference as you can have in the world.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________