Progress of Health Care
Negotiations
PARTICIPANTS:
Mike Baroody National
Association of Manufacturers
U.S. Senator Tim Hutchinson
(R-AR)
PROCEEDINGS:
MR. BAROODY: Good morning. Good
morning and welcome to another of the NAM's series of issue
briefing breakfasts. My name is Mike Baroody. I work at the
National Association of Manufacturers.
And Senator, it's sometimes our
custom before introducing our guest to the NAM to introduce
the NAM to our guest. I know you know us as a trade
association, and perhaps you know that we have 14,000 member
companies, large, mid-sized, and small, as well as 350 member
associations, including the Arkansas State Association, among
our membership. But not everyone yet knows that we are also at
the NAM proudly 18 million people who make things in
America.
As a four-year veteran of the
Labor Department in Ronald Reagan's second term, I'm sometimes
inclined to add about that number that that's more working
Americans than John Sweeney represents, and we believe at the
NAM that we represent not just more but better, the real
interests of American working men and women and their families
through our advocacy of a pro-growth agenda.
That agenda rests on four T's, as
we call it: Taxes, trade, technology, and training. But it
also rests confidently on the expectation of some R's: Some
reforms that will remove obstacles to growth, whether it's tax
reform, entitlement reform, legal reform, regulatory reform.
And reform, of course, is one of the principal topics we'd
like to hear from you this morning on. But I would -- that is
to say, efforts in the Congress to reform our health care
system.
But I will quickly add that we're
interested, Senator, in anything you've got to share with us
on the prospects for pro-growth policy generally in this
second session of the 106th Congress. I think it was Jefferson
who said something to the effect that I hold that a little
revolution is good for the soul from time to time.
At the NAM perhaps we're as
Jeffersonian as the next trade association, but when it -- we
take Jefferson to mean that settled systems sometimes need a
little shaking up. But when it comes to the system by which
130 million Americans get their health care, the voluntary
employer provision of health care, a little reform may be good
a thing, but we don't hold that there's any such thing as a
little liability. Given the agility if not the outright
elasticity of the American legal mind, a little liability
today would surely lead to a lot of liability no later than
the day after tomorrow.
And that's our message to you as
a conferee on this all important issue to us. We are
interested in hearing your message to us not only on what we
might expect out of the conference but when we might expect
it, and your advice about what we might do about it to make
sure that members of Congress in the conference and outside of
it hear our message and our concern that that -- that Congress
do no harm in a way that will diminish that number, 130
million, who get their health care through the voluntary
employer system, and expand the number of 44 million by doing
so who don't get -- and who don't currently have health care
benefits at all. We are very concerned that we call
"Dinglewood" would drive both numbers in the wrong
direction.
We look forward to hearing from
you on that and any other subjects you'd like to share with
us, and before that now an introduction to the NAM of our
speaker.
Senator Tim Hutchinson made
history as the first Republican ever to be popularly elected
to the United States Senate from the state of Arkansas. He was
sworn into office in January of 1997 and he brings to us and
to the Senate a unique perspective as one of the few members
with a background both in small business and in
education.
His career in public service
began with his election to the Arkansas State House of
Representatives where he served eight years from 1985 to 1992.
In 1992, Senator Hutchinson was elected to represent Arkansas'
Third Congressional District in the U.S. House of
Representatives, where he served two terms.
He's a former history teacher at
John Brown University located in Siloam Springs, Arkansas, and
he also co-owned and managed KBCV radio in Bentonville from
1982 to 1989, where he learned first hand the red tape and
government bureaucracy which small business owners encounter
every day.
It's our great pleasure and honor
to have you here with us this morning, Senator Hutchinson.
Thank you for joining us.
(Applause.)
MR. HUTCHINSON: Well, thank you
very much, Mike, and as he said, I'm -- really first of all
I'll just express my appreciation for that nice introduction,
because I was in Washington State with my brother Asa at a
Lincoln Day dinner campaigning for George W. Bush about two
weeks ago. And we don't do Lincoln Day dinners very often
together. But this was, you know, the governor asked us to do
this, go up and since Asa's the celebrity, I went along with
him.
(Laughter.)
And he's very big in Republican
circles. He's not liked particularly in Democrat circles, but
he's loved by the Republicans, and so we up. And they
explained to him, because he is a celebrity and everything,
they explained to him the protocol that because I'm the
senator that he would go first and then I would follow, and
then after he made his remarks, he was supposed to introduce
me.
So he got up, and it was a big
crowd, 350 people or so at the Lincoln Day dinner up north of
Seattle, up almost on the Canadian border, and he got
-- I mean, they gave him a
standing ovation, and he gave a rousing speech. He got all
wound up. He was going on and on. At the conclusion of his
speech they gave him another standing ovation. And he was
basking in this glory as he walked off the platform and forgot
to introduce me altogether.
(Laughter.)
So I wasn't sure what that was,
and they were like, "Go on, go on, go on." And I went up and I
said I want to thank my brother for that generous
introduction.
(Laughter.)
So, Mike, today I really mean it.
Thank you for that generous introduction.
And as he said, I am from
Arkansas, so I'm really glad to get invited to speak anywhere
these days. And Arkansas, of course, is the state that has
produced more New York Senate candidates than any other state
in the nation.
(Laughter.)
Let me take just a few minutes
and give a brief overview of where we stand on the so-called
Patients' Bill of Rights and then open it up for questions,
and I'd really like to spend the bulk of our time just taking
Q&A.
Mike mentioned that I was elected
to the Arkansas House of Representatives in 1984, began
serving in 1985. When I went from northwest Arkansas to Little
Rock, I had never so much as heard the acronym "HMO". I had no
idea what that meant. Growing up Gravette, Arkansas,
population 894, we had one doctor in the 1950s, Dr. Billy
Hall, and he was beloved. He made house calls, he did
everything. And I remember later, much later, after he had
built a hospital in Gravette and he was the main -- he
provided health care for the community and all the surrounding
area there, he got in trouble with Medicare over something,
which isn't necessarily a bad thing. He got in trouble and
they were trying to sanction him in some way, and I remember
bumper stickers sprouting up all over northwest Arkansas, "We
Love Billy Hall." And he really was very beloved.
But he was what health care was.
It was very much fee for service and it was very much if you
couldn't pay in cash you bartered something with him. And that
was health care.
And then as it began to -- a lot
of good changes took place with technology and all of the
developments that have occurred in health care in our society.
But when I was elected to the House of Representatives, I
literally had to have -- I wanted them to explain to me what
the concept of an HMO was, what a PPO was.
And in northwest Arkansas, in the
northwestern part of our State, health maintenance
organizations were nonexistent even up into the 1990s. It was
a very late-blossoming phenomenon in Arkansas in
general.
And then when I was elected to
the legislature -- to the Congress, rather, in '92 and went to
Washington, I remember well as you all remember very well all
of the health care debate and the Hillary care and her efforts
at nationalizing our health care system. And that the great
irony to me is that those today who are decrying managed care
were the very ones who in 1993 were saying the salvation of
our health care system was managed care, and that every
American ought to be required to be in a managed care system.
And now these are the very folks who are coming back and
saying that we need to pass a patients' bill of
rights.
There probably have been
sufficient -- they're -- much of it anecdotal, but there's
enough abuses that have come to light that it's going to
follow that there's going to be an effort to government to
step in and to do some regulation.
It's I think in a lot of ways
like a pendulum, and the pendulum swung very much toward
managed care as being the means by which the spiraling health
care costs could be controlled. And when the pendulum went so
far, there was this swing back. And now the question is, how
far is it going to swing back, and are we going to devastate
an employer-based health care system?
As Mike said, the vast majority
of American citizens receive their health care insurance
through their employer and through the benefits provided by
their employer. Are we going to destroy that, and in so doing
really be a back door effort at moving us toward that
nationalized health care system which the American people
rejected a few years ago? And that is my great
fear.
Now we all are aware that health
care costs, even with what has happened in managed care, that
health care is -- health care inflation is rising much, much
faster than inflation as a whole in society, which is almost
nonexistent. But health care -- in the health care arena,
you're still having six to seven percent annual increase in
insurance premiums. That in itself translates into lots of
folks who are losing access to our health care system because
of those rising premiums.
If the House-passed bill would
come out of conference, if it would be adopted and the
president should sign it into law, the Congressional Budget
Office estimates that that would add on top of the already six
to seven percent inflation in health care, another 4.1 percent
increase in -- annual increase in those premium rates, which
puts you up over 11 percent, double-digit inflation in health
care premiums.
We believe that -- I believe that
the CBO has underestimated the impact that the liability
provisions particular in the House-passed bill would have on
health care costs. But even if you accept those numbers and
you end up with 11 to 12 percent increase in health care
inflation, you're talking in terms of three-plus million
people if you adopt the studies that have been done and the
formulas that have been devised as to how many people would
lose their health insurance.
So you're then putting the total
uninsured in America close to the 50 million mark, and we
increase those numbers greatly by a House model kind of
bill.
So let me just take a moment to
talk about two particular areas, probably the two greatest
areas of contention between the House and Senate bills. And
that's liability and scope. As I visited with many of you
before breakfast, I think you know these issues inside out, so
I'm going to be brief on giving this over for you and then
allow you to ask questions.
But the Senate basically says
that the goal should be in the area of liability to ensure
that a patient has a means of appealing the decision of their
decision of their insurance company but doing so in such a way
as to ensure quality health and quality health care for the
individual, not just a means to spin the liability -- the
litigation roulette wheel and clog the courts even
further.
So we would provide for an
internal and external appeal, an external, independent appeal,
allowing a decision to be made independent of that which has
been made by the insurance company and allow that patient then
to be able to receive prompt treatment that's in that
individual's best interest as determined by an external
arbiter or external physician who looks at the situation.
We think that makes good sense.
That's the best way to ensure that in fact that insurance
companies are not practicing medicine, that they're not making
medical decisions and overruling the good sense of physicians,
and that there's a means by which those decisions can be
appealed, done so in a very quick and expeditious way. And
that if it was a bad decision, the right decision can be made
and that person can get the health care they need and
deserve.
The House, on the other hand,
basically have
-- they have an external appeal
mechanism, but it is not required that an individual utilize
it. They have an unlimited right to litigate. Now it is argued
that they protect the employer from lawsuit, but that is very
much in dispute as to whether it adequately protects the
employer from lawsuit. But certainly the HMO would be able to
be sued in both state and federal court with unlimited
punitive damages. And so the House has a very, very broad kind
of liability provision.
And, according to NAM's survey of
their own membership, 38 percent of employers in this country
would reconsider whether they would or could offer health care
as a benefit should that kind of liability provision be passed
into law. And that is -- you know, maybe the CBO ought to take
that survey into consideration when they estimate how many
would lose insurance under a House-passed bill with that kind
of liability provision.
So that is going to be obviously
the biggest point of contention between the House and Senate
conferees is how the liability issue is addressed in the
conference bill.
The second great area of
difference is the scope of the bills. The Senate approach was
essentially that we should fill in the gaps of those who are
unprotected and ensure that those who currently are not
protected by the state insurance laws, essentially the ERISA
self-managed plans, self-insured plans, that they would be
covered by the Senate bill, while the House approach was to
take the HIPPA model and say they were going to supersede all
state laws and blanket all managed care plans with those added
protections that they put in.
We think that we're taking the
sensible and the reasonable and the right approach; that we
are dealing with that area in which there is clear federal
jurisdiction -- ERISA -- and that we are honoring the
traditional role of the states in being the regulators of
insurance, and that we should not step in and supersede what
the states have done in their own state protections. And I
think it's 22 states have passed some kind of patient
protection legislation. And that is within their purview to
address insurance as regulated by the state, and that we
should only address that which is clearly in our jurisdiction
on the federal side and the ERISA plans.
So there's a huge argument in the
scope. And this was of course during the Senate debate on the
floor and the week that we spent on the bill thrown up at us
continually as leaving all of these tens of millions of
Americans unprotected, which is very much a mischaracterizaton
of the bill, because those Americans have protection under
existing state laws. But that's a huge difference between the
bills is the scope of the two bills.
Now we have had a number of
meetings among the Republican senators who are conferees. And
we have basically be re-briefed on all of the provisions in
the Senate bill as well as contrasts and comparisons with the
House-passed bill in preparation for the conference.
The conference was originally
scheduled to hold its first full meeting February 10th. That
meeting was postponed at the request of Senator Kennedy. And
was he hospitalized at that -- he was in the hospital at that
time with a case flu. And so because the Senate and House took
different weeks for their recess schedule this year for
President's Week, that has delayed now until at least next
week a full conference meeting. We anticipate that the first
full conference meeting will occur next week when the House
comes back into session.
The leadership of the House and
Senate have both established March 31st as the deadline for
the conference to produce a bill. And the conferees are going
to try to honor that. They're going to try to actually get a
bill done by then, and that is a very, very ambitious
schedule. This is clearly a conference that could last all
year if one wanted to drag it out. And there is a commitment
that that will not occur and that there will be a bill come
out of the conference by the end of March.
I don't know if that can be met
or not, but at this point, at least, that is -- they're
seeking to honor that commitment and to get it done by
then.
Conference committee, as you all
know, is -- the purpose of that is to merge two bills
together. And the only way that can happen is for there to be
compromises. And so I suspect there are going to be a number
of areas of compromise, and there's a lot of commonality
between the two bills.
The two areas in which it's going
to be interesting to see what kind of compromise can be
reached, if any, is in the area of scope and the area of
liability.
And there is -- and those two
issues I think will be left to the very end. They'll be the
last ones that will be addressed in the conference. And if
there is any give on the Senate side's position, it will be in
the area of having some kind of very limited liability
provision that might attract more the Coburn-Shadegg kind of
approach where it would be only after you had exhausted
internal and external appeal, only in federal court, and
probably with an inclusion of some kind of cap on damages,
including tort reform and possibly even broader tort reform
that would be included in the bill, which would in all
likelihood be a poison pill for the president signing
anything.
But the Senate does intend, and
they feel very strongly about these issues, that we will
defend the Senate bill and we will operate on any compromises
based upon the principles that we should not increase the
number of uninsured. We should not create new federal
bureaucracies. We should not increase inordinately health care
spending and health care costs in this legislation. And so
based upon those principles, we'll try to produce a bill that
meets some of the needs without doing damage.
And I think that what Mike said
is do no harm, and what Bill Frist has said repeatedly as
we've gone through this process is that that should be our
first and guiding principle is that we don't do, in trying to
improve a health care system, that we don't create the
unintended consequences of harming what is arguably and
defensively the best health care system in the
world.
So with that, let me open it up
and entertain any questions that anybody might have on this or
other subjects. Rob?
QUESTION: Senator, Rob McDonald
with --
MR. HUTCHINSON: China, right?
China. You're going to jump from health care to
China.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, if you want to do
China -- as we've talked many times, whoever is elected
president later this year, probably the most challenging
bilateral relationship that person will have to manage is the
U.S.-China relationship. And it promises to be a difficult one
for years to come.
MR. HUTCHINSON: I was kidding.
You really are going to ask about China.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: You have been a real
leader on behalf of those who would like to be able to speak
their conscience in China and yet have been thinking a lot
about this WTO agreement and does that help, does that hurt.
Could you talk a little bit about how you see the U.S.-China
WTO agreement, both on the commercial merits and on some of
the issues that you have been very active on as
well?
MR. HUTCHINSON: Yeah, the -- as
Rob and I have had many, many lengthy discussions about China
and trade. I have always opposed NTR for China on the annual
debate, not because I thought that was a particularly
effective means of addressing human rights concerns in China,
but because I thought the annual debate was important, that
raising the issue was important, and that there was never any
risk that NTR was not going to be renewed for China year in
and year out.
But the WTO debate really puts it
in a different arena, I believe, because I have reached the
conclusion -- and I always felt trade was not an effective
means of addressing human rights, that it was in many ways
aggravated the relationship between our two nations. It
certainly hurt a lot of Americans who were producing products
that could be sold there. But that China's membership in the
WTO and accession into the World Trade Organization will
provide us a greater means of encouraging transparency, of
having greater influence over their behavior and their entry
into the community of civilized nations.
I think it's very, very abhorrent
the way they treat their people. I think that -- you know, I
disagree with a lot of folks who think that the progress there
has been adequate. I don't. And I think that their statements
in the last week or so reiterated again today by the Chinese
military, the very bellicose statements they've made about
Taiwan, is very nonproductive and very harmful and frankly,
pretty scary.
But I don't think that those
problems and those misgivings about their human rights
progress should prevent us from having them as members of the
WTO. So I would vote for permanent NTR for China and would
seek to have them as part of the world trade organization. And
that's what Rob wanted to hear, and that --
(Laughter.)
I told him I'd said that
publicly, but he just wanted to make sure I said that
publicly.
(Applause.)
That was kind of a lukewarm
applause, but it's better than what I usually get on my China
statements.
(Laughter.)
MR. BAROODY: By seeking
recognition I may have cut off the applause. I wanted to get
up principally to thank you for what you just said. We -- in
introducing you, I focused exclusively on the health care
concerns we have. But clearly for the overwhelming majority of
American manufacturers, the China trade relationship is very
important, and we applaud and thank you for the statement you
just made.
Now, back to health care.
MR. HUTCHINSON: Okay.
MR. BAROODY: I would just point
out to you that not only did the NAM get a 38 percent response
as you alluded to in your remarks, that people would seriously
consider dropping health care if liability provisions passed,
but that's been confirmed by another study that was conducted
only of large concerns. Our study went to both our large and
small manufactures. A study of was it 600 large concerns,
found the same result: 38 to 40 percent, who said if liability
becomes law, sooner or later they're out of the business of
provision of health care.
The question has a predicate. A
member of company of ours before the vote on Dingell-Norwood,
a very large company, called their member of Congress and told
him essentially that: If liability becomes law, we will stop
providing health care and pass out vouchers or some
equivalent.
After the congressman voted for
Dingell-Norwood, that same company got back to him and said,
"Didn't you hear us?" And the congressman said, "I heard you,
but frankly, I didn't believe you." All that's a predicate to
the question, how do we -- what do we need to do to make sure
that members of Congress understand that this is very serious
for American employers, certainly manufacturers, but across
the board, and that it really would have that
consequence?
MR. HUTCHINSON: Yeah. That's an
excellent point. Because I had -- I know one of your members
in Arkansas is Tysons, Tysons Foods. And Tysons has told me
the same thing, that they would -- I don't know that they
actually said they would. They would consider dropping it.
Wal-Mart has even been stronger in their insistence that they
would go to a voucher or some kind of health care benefit and
say go get your own health care insurance.
But you're absolutely right,
Mike, that most members do not -- they think that that's
scare, it's scare tactics. They don't really believe that that
would occur. And I am not sure how you impress that more, but
I think reiteration, saying it and saying it and saying it
again, is the best thing that you can do. And, you know, when
members are in their districts, set up those NAM meetings,
make sure that their local employers are making the point and
making the point over and over. That's the only thing I think
that can get through.
Because this is an issue that
resonates. You know, campaign finance reform, frankly, it's
much easier to vote against a McCain finance reform in
Washington because nobody really cares out there. I mean, if
you ask them are they for reform, they're for reform, but it
doesn't touch their lives and they're not really that
concerned about it. But you ask them about managed care, and
they have experienced it. And it resonates and members see it
as a powerful, powerful political issue that can be demagogued
easily.
And it is more difficult -- I
mean, when you talk in terms of a few more million people
losing health insurance, that's a statistic. When you tell a
story about somebody who was told by their HMO that they
couldn't get the kind of CAT scans or whatever that would
reveal a condition that could be life-threatening, and that
the insurance wouldn't pay for it, then it becomes very, very
personal. And if it's a loved one, it becomes very personal.
And there are enough of those stories out there and enough of
those things that have happened that this scares members of
Congress to death, and that's what you have to
overcome.
Because i really believe that if
in fact we passed a liability provision anywhere near
Norwood-Dingell, that a lot of companies would drop their
insurance, that you'd have millions more out of insurance, and
the result would be that we would have a whole new move for
nationalizing the health care system.
And I don't know if that's
calculated or not, but I think that that could well be the
consequence of an ill-advised patients' bill of rights, that
we would add new impetus to nationalizing the whole system,
which I think would be a terrible move.
Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Just following up on
that, you focused on the liability and scope issue, which has
mostly been focused on, which are hugely important issues.
There are also a whole set of other provisions in both bills.
And while their titles may be the same, how they achieve their
goals and the power that they give to the secretaries of HHS
and the Department of Labor are very different. And I think
the words really do matter --
MR. HUTCHINSON:
Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- which is more of a
statement than a question, but in trying to come to some
agreement, we be conscious of the fact that we're in essence
making the department -- the secretary of the Department of
Labor a full partner with any employer who voluntarily chooses
to provide these benefits. And I am not sure that that's the
goal that we really want to achieve.
MR. HUTCHINSON: I agree entirely.
And you're absolutely right about the significance of these
other provisions and the wording of them.
And in most cases, in fact almost
every case, the House language -- the result will be much more
costly and much more bureaucratic. And I think that the staff
-- and I want to -- I think everybody knows Kate Hall on my
staff. But our -- in the Senate have done an incredibly good
job of analyzing the impact of even every tiny provision in
these bills. And we're going to be very conscious of that, and
I have dealt with the two big issues.
But you're very right that there
are in every area from I guess emergency room care, the
language differences in the House and Senate -- all of those
have much -- have a lot of impact on the cost and the burden
placed upon business. So, point well made.
Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Just a question. What
would be the chances the conferees would produce a bill the
president wouldn't veto? And what would a presidential veto do
to the whole --
MR. HUTCHINSON: Yeah, we're
really in the -- there's a lot of possibilities, a lot of
scenarios. So we could produce a bill -- I mean, Charlie
Norwood, to a great extent, as far as whether a bill would
pass the House, he's going to have a lot -- he's almost going
to have veto power, because he has enough votes that he could
control over there with that very small majority that if he
decides a bill is not -- doesn't meet his specifications, that
he can't live with it, I think he could cause a bill to fail
in the House.
So we could conceivably produce a
bill, Charlie felt left out of the process not being on the
conference. He's already gone out there and said he thinks
that the leadership should go meet with the president and
negotiate their own bill, which is not the way the process
works and is not the way it's going to work. But -- so you've
got that possibility. We'd produce a bill that the Senate
would pass and the House would not.
If we get -- and I think Charlie
is willing to accept some changes in the liability provisions
and take a more narrow liability approach. If you came up with
a bill that you could get through the House, what would the
president do? I think the first thing he would do is do a
poll.
(Laughter.)
He would test it. And he takes
credit today for welfare reform, but the only reason it passed
was because it was an election year and it was popular,
because he vetoed it twice. And so I don't discount the
possibility that he would sign a bill that -- and it depends
upon -- it all depends upon the politics of it. I mean, I
think he wants a legacy, but he also wants Al Gore as
president. And so if he wants the issue more than he wants to
pass more modest reforms than what he would like, you know, I
mean I think that's going to determine what he does, is how it
plays with the public and how popular it is and how the press
portray it. And there'll be a lot of polling done and then he
will make his decision on that basis. And that's my cynical
view of our president.
(Laughter.)
Yes?
QUESTION: Senator, one thing that
is being talked about a little bit is a possible compromise
that talks about a ban on class actions but gives more rights
to people to sue in either federal or state court, perhaps
federal court. Is there a serious effort to try to make some
sort of compromise along those lines?
MR. HUTCHINSON: No. And that is,
I mean that has not even been discussed among Republican
conferees on the Senate side. But it's been in the press and
I've seen the accounts of that -- the White House's reference
to that.
But, no. The only -- I mean,
right now the Senate position is we like what we do. We don't
want a right-to-sue provision in there. But there has been no
meeting with the House at all yet, and at some point we're
going to have to address can we come together at all on this.
And to the extent that there's room for compromise, I think it
would be along the lines I said -- where there would have to
be -- they would have to exhaust internal and external appeals
before they'd have any right to sue, that it would limited to
federal court, and it would be with limitations on
damages.
So that goes much further than
the idea of limiting some class action lawsuits. As long as
you have the potential for class action lawsuit at either
state or federal level, you've got a pretty big loophole
there, I think. And I'm not an attorney, but I don't think
that is a basis for compromise between the House and Senate.
There's going to have to be a lot more of these other
limitations on any right to sue than just the class
actions.
QUESTION: You've commented that a
lot of the politicians react to the anecdotal information that
is out there. The statistic about 41 million uninsured, if you
look at the research, it's about 40 percent less than that. I
fall into the category of uninsured because I opt out of my
employer's plan and am covered under my spouse's plan. But
that catches well.
I -- could you comment a little
bit about how do you deal with preventing legislation by
anecdote? And I think where there are abuses, I think we
should come down with both feet on those organizations in the
managed care industry that are kind of causing that. The
majority -- we have been advised by a lot of organizations in
this area it's not the case, yet what happens is we parade
these stories out in front of legislators and they react
responsibly to those stories, but there is nothing really to
counter that. Any advice, Senator, on how to deal with
that?
MR. HUTCHINSON: Well, Republicans
are pretty bad at humanizing issues. Democrats are very good.
As you saw during this whole debate on the Senate floor, it
was anecdote after anecdote, pictures on the Senate floor of
individuals along with the anecdotes. And it was -- and that's
very powerful stuff. And the front page cover stories and news
magazines about HMO abuses have all -- it's underlined and
unscored. So I mean I think we did it about as well as it can
be done during the Senate debate.
Don Nichols and Bill Frist, Don
Nichols in particular deserve enormous credit in keeping us
together, helping to spin the story and helping to get out,
you know, daily and make our case to the media, going on the
talk shows on the weekends and defending the Senate approach
and the dangers of a Norwood kind of bill, and taking the hits
through that week but controlling the damage as much as
possible and producing a more rational, reasonable kind of
bill.
I mean, that I think -- and that
is the goal is for us in meeting -- with having a task force
even beyond the conferees, who are familiar enough with the
issues and with the consequences of the legislation to do more
than just do the minutiae of the legislation but to actually
go out and defend it and explain why this is the best
approach. We're going to have to do that all the way through
this process so that what we did that week on the Senate floor
is continued in the way we handle the issue. And we need your
help a lot on that.
But oftentimes what we do is
emotionally based, whether it's gun control measures. I'm
always amazed. Of course I come from a very -- Arkansas is an
NRA kind of state. But emotional situations like these
terrible tragedies in schools, and then immediately there
would be a whole plethora of proposals, many of which are
absolutely unrelated to whatever happened. But the emotion of
the moment provides an impetus to really put pressure on
passing legislation.
And I frankly think that's what
happens in the health care debate. A lot of the anecdotes, you
just kind of scratch your head and say, well, how's this going
to address that? And they're unrelated, but they have a great
deal of emotional impact. And we need to do a better job of
making the -- putting a human face on people losing insurance
and the consequences of that, but we sure do need your help on
it.
And Mike's getting ready to stand
up.
MR. BAROODY: I wondered if you
had time for one more question. Is there any one
more?
MR. HUTCHINSON: We'll do one more
and -- yes?
QUESTION: Shannon Russell with
Ashland. In the interest of full disclosure, this year I'm
president of NABPAC, the National Association of Business
PACs, and we are 130 corporations and trade associations who
actually do have an interest in campaign finance
reform.
With Senator McCain either, you
know, coming back to the Senate or becoming president one day
--
MR. HUTCHINSON: I expected this
question sooner.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: He certainly magnified
the issue. Everybody in this room under Senator McCain's
scenario is probably tainted by special interests or seemingly
corrupt.
(Laughter.)
You have opposed McCain-Feingold
in the past. You've supported a watered-down version this past
time. I'm just curious if you've looked at the Hagel-Kerrey
bill and how do you see Senator McConnell's upcoming hearings
going and any idea if this issue which we believe will
continue to have legs? But you're absolutely right. No one
outside of Washington, D.C. does care about it.
MR. HUTCHINSON: Yeah. Shannon,
I'm not clear -- I'm not sure of the specifics. I can't
remember the specifics on the Hagel-Kerrey bill. My general
impression was as I looked at that that I didn't have a lot of
problem with it. I thought it was a pretty good approach in
it.
I did -- my problem with
McCain-Feingold initially was the restrictions on independent
expenditures that I just think you've got great constitutional
problems and real -- I had genuine, really genuine concerns
about the First Amendment -- infringing upon First Amendment
right. And that any group out there, whether it's ALCU or
National Right to Life, ought to have the right to run an ad
and criticize or commend members in Congress. And to start
saying you can't do that 30 days before or you can't put a
picture or there or you can't say this or that, I have very,
very serious problems with that.
The ban on soft money, I had
publicly supported that. I think the soft money has been
abused; that it was never intended for soft money to work the
way it works, where companies are extorted in one sense, and
that money goes into the coffers of the party, and the party
in turn effectively runs campaign ads with it, not at the
control of the candidates. I think we needed to either put
restrictions or eliminate the soft money. So I voted for the
watered-down version of it.
I think the fact that Mitch
McConnell is holding hearings and has talked about
limitations, restrictions on the soft money, says how far the
debate has moved, and that McCain has had a big impact on the
realization that there's probably going to be something done
on that. I don't know whether it will happen this year in the
midst -- I doubt that anything will happen this year in the
midst of an election year.
But you've got, you know, George
Bush, now, George W. Bush saying we ought to ban soft money.
So he's got his own version of campaign finance reform. But I
think probably we're going to have something next
year.
This year -- what have we got, 50
days, legislative days left? Fifty-two legislative? Not much
time. And it's -- everybody's desire is -- I mean, when we go
into a conference and Trent Lott says, we were on recess last
week and we ticked up three more points in the polls, there's
a recognition that we do a lot better when we're out of town
than when we're in town.
(Laughter.)
So the main emphasis about
getting the appropriations bills done early and wrapping
things up early, and so things like campaign finance reform
that you have a week-long debate on, the Democrats could
coerce us into that kind of having to devote -- where Lott
would have to say, we ought to set aside three days for this
or whatever.
But with McCain on the road, I
just don't expect that you're even going to have the debate on
the floor this year. That you'll have the hearings and we'll
not actually have a vote on a bill.
MR. BAROODY: Thank
you.
MR. HUTCHINSON: Thank you very
much. I've enjoyed it as I always do.
|