Some Senators Seek Special Session on Health Reform

In a last, desperate effort to rescue health reform legislation, a core group of Democratic senators is putting intense pressure on Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) to take the extraordinary step of bringing the Senate back into session after the November election to consider one of several scaled-back alternatives.

Several reported, however, that Mitchell--who gave up a Supreme Court nomination so that he could lead the fight for the health bill--feels defeated and has concluded that there is no reason to prolong the battle.

It was widely believed that Mitchell was prepared to formally pull the plug on the entire health reform effort Friday, but his office made an abrupt afternoon announcement that he would make no statement. He later declined requests for interviews.

One senator, speaking on the grounds that he not be identified, said Mitchell continued to vacillate because there was “a fraction of a fraction of a chance” that he might consider a post-election session.

The “lame-duck session,” called that because it would include senators whose replacements had already been chosen by voters, is held only rarely--and generally for the most urgent of unfinished business.

The most recent was in 1982 and dealt with budget and appropriations legislation. In other instances, they have been called because of war or for such unusual purposes as censuring the infamous Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy, and making up for delays caused by the Watergate investigation and President Richard Nixon’s resignation.

According to several sources, the idea for holding such a session to deal with health care originated Thursday among a group of the most ardent reform advocates, including Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Harris Wofford (D-Pa.), John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).

“Would I be willing to do it? You bet!” Rockefeller said when asked about the possibility of staying in session past the election to consider health reform. “I want an accounting. I want a vote. The American people deserve to know who stands where.”

A lame-duck session also is said to have support that extends well beyond that group of Democrats to include some moderate Republicans. “There’s a lot of us who would like to do this,” one Democrat said. “We’re going into this election having spent all this time on it, and we have zero.”

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said he would like to hold a test vote, putting a limit on debate, immediately before adjournment. “Then take it out to the voters and let them question their candidates,” he said.

However, it would take 60 votes to put a limit on debate, the test vote that would set the stage for a lame-duck session.

“I’ve come to the conclusion we can’t get 60 votes for the Ten Commandments,” conceded Sen. John B. Breaux (D-La.), a leader in a bipartisan effort to draft a scaled-back health bill. “In today’s atmosphere, I don’t think we could pass a single-line health bill.”

It is unclear precisely which of two bills would be considered. Both fall well short of the sweeping overhaul that President Clinton originally proposed a little more than a year ago.

One, which bills itself as the “mainstream” alternative, is the only one that lays claim to significant bipartisan support.

It would expand coverage to roughly 94% of the population--from the current 85%--through a combination of government subsidies and incentives. It also seeks to end widely condemned insurance industry practices, such as those that make it difficult for people with poor health records to get coverage.

The other bill would make more minimal changes in insurance practices and would focus on subsidies for pregnant women and children. That bill is being pushed by a generally liberal group of Democrats.

Mitchell, however, has several powerful reasons to put the issue of health reform behind him--something he can accomplish only by officially pronouncing it dead for the year.

Senators who have consulted with him say that he is determined to remove it as a distraction, so that the Senate can concentrate on other measures--such as international trade legislation--in the two weeks that remain before the Oct. 7 adjournment target.

Additionally, with many Democrats facing difficult reelection battles and the outside prospect that the Senate could actually fall into GOP control, he is anxious to adjourn as soon as possible to allow them as much time as possible to campaign in their home states.

It is far from certain whether there would be any sentiment in the House for returning to Washington after the election to continue the health care battle.

On Friday, House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) was already discussing the sort of bill that he envisioned producing in the next session of Congress.

He said the legislation would embody many of the same goals as the Clinton plan: expanded coverage, cost containment and less shifting of health costs onto the privately insured. However, Foley stopped short of saying Congress would strive for the President’s most basic hope--guaranteed coverage for every American.

Despite the fact that the public appears more relieved than angry at the apparent failure of the health reform effort, Foley suggested that Republicans will ultimately pay a political price for having blocked health legislation this year.

“I think we’re going to benefit from having had the debate of the last year, and I think the public is going to (understand) who was interested in moving the health reform issues and who is now boasting about having blocked the improvement in the health opportunities of the American people,” he said.