John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this is not about a binding resolution, this is about having a political debate. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, who just spoke realizes that the other body has a very different bill. In the legislative process, our jobs are to come to some consensus with the other body, some consensus that is good for the American people. Now, there is not a bill that came to this floor that did not provide for more accountability for those in managed care. There is not a bill that came to this floor that did not provide for more physicians' judgments in controlling the treatments that the patient was going to get. We all want more accountability. But we have got to do it in a way that will not drive millions of people into the ranks of the uninsured. I think all of my colleagues know that I believe that we can have more accountability without introducing unending and open-ended litigation into the process. Bringing trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuits into health care will do nothing more than drive up the cost and drive down access. We all know that today about 125 million Americans get their insurance through their employer. I realize that some want to change that. But today that is, in fact, the system. Every employee will tell us the number one benefit that they get from their employer is their health benefit. Why did we want to jeopardize the ability of employers to provide this benefit to their employees by opening up the health care system to an open-ended liability? Now, there is a great concern about the liability portion of the bill passed by this House, that in fact many employers will not open themselves up to that liability and will begin dropping coverage for their employees. Is that really what the House wants to do? I think what we need to do is to go to conference with the Senate and to find the right consensus for the American people.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us know that the motion before us is a nonbinding motion of the House. All of our colleagues understand clearly that this is an opportunity to have a political debate about the issue of health care reform in America. So let us have the political debate. But understand, this really does not mean anything. But as we have gone through the whole issue of reforming health care over the last 7 years or so, the debate has grown. We have focused the debate away from the uninsured to accountability of HMOs. I do not think there is any Member of the House who does not believe that there is a way to bring accountability, more accountability, to managed care if it is done in a reasonable way. I think also we have learned over the last few years that when we start to bring accountability into the picture, we can get carried away with too much accountability that leads to less affordability for the American people, and we know that less affordability means less accessibility. While we all want managed care reforms and we want more accountability, we know that the far greater problem in America today is the fact that we have 44 million people who have no health insurance at all. We know that if we do things that are going to raise costs, we are going to drive down access. This is about a balance. We cannot consider access or accountability without considering affordability and accessibility. That is why the bill that left the House had a large access piece authored by my good friends, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), that would help ensure we could address the growing problem of the uninsured in America. The bill that I think the House passed will lead to more uninsured if we do not do something about increasing the access provisions that were called for in the Shadegg-Talent access bill. Mr. Speaker, as we go to conference with the Senate, they have a completely different position, a much narrower bill. Some may argue they have a much more practical bill. What we as conferees have to do on behalf of the House is to find the right balance, find the right balance between accountability without driving employers out of the process, without driving up premium costs, and without driving more people into the ranks of uninsured, because what are these accountability measures going to mean to Americans if they have no health insurance? They mean nothing. Mr. Speaker, let us go work with the Senate. Let us find the right balance between accountability, affordability, and accessibility. I think that is what the American people expect of their representatives on both sides of the aisle, is to find that right balance.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, for four decades, the members of an organization known as the O'Tucks have dedicated themselves to serving our community and preserving the unique culture and traditions of Kentucky's Appalachian highlands. If you're even remotely familiar with the rich and vibrant culture of Appalachian Kentucky, it shouldn't surprise you to learn that groups like the O'Tucks exist. But it might surprise you to find such a group thriving outside of Kentucky--in Butler County, Ohio. The O'Tucks (as in ``Ohioans from Kentucky'') were founded 40 years ago by Mr. Stanley Dezarn, who was born in 1922 near the Goose Creek River in the Bluegrass State's Clay County. A lifelong educator and community leader, Stanley Dezarn founded the O'Tucks with a set of specific goals, which Ercel Eaton of the Hamilton Journal-News detailed last year: ``to provide a common ground for exchange of ideas and experiences for people with common cultural and environmental backgrounds; to strive to preserve the rich qualities of folklore and music of the Appalachian highlands; [and] to work for the continuous improvement of the community by cooperating with and assisting civic leaders, organizations, and public officials in Butler County.'' For years the O'Tucks have fulfilled these goals repeatedly and successfully in our community. They've enriched the lives of countless Butler County residents through their music and cultural events. But they've also contributed to our community through their service and spirit of volunteerism, which has helped more than a few of their fellow citizens realize the dream of getting a college education or pursuing a career in art, teaching, nursing and other fields. Mr. Speaker, even after four decades of good times and good service, the O'Tucks have never strayed from the original goals of Stanley Dezarn. Fittingly, the O'Tucks will honor their founder late this month at their 40th anniversary banquet, and give thanks to Stanley Dezarn for his lifetime of dedication and service to the O'Tucks and the Butler County community. Stanley Dezarn and the O'Tucks are an inspiration for all Americans. They're proof that what makes America a great society is not her strong government, or her time-tested institutions, or her mighty industries; what makes America great is the spirit and enthusiasm of her people. I urge my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Stanley Dezarn and the O'Tucks organization for 40 years of distinguished service to the Butler County community and the United States of America.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, the Majority Leader. Most of us in this Chamber are pretty fortunate. Our kids go to good schools. I know that my kid went to good public schools in my district; and, frankly, the schools in my district, by and large, are very good schools. But we also know that we have got children trapped in very bad schools around our country. The U.S. Department of Education keeps track of a list of academic emergencies. Some of these schools have been on this list for 10 years. I wonder how long we can look the other way when children are trapped in schools that have no chance of success. We are imprisoning those children for the rest of their lives. Yes, Title I, we have spent an awful lot of money over the years. Yes, we have been able to save some children. The point here is that this is a pilot program aimed at the worst schools in the country to give parents some ability to help their children. The Governor has to have declared that the school is an academic emergency. The program is completely voluntary so that no State is forced to do this. But the point I think that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is trying to bring here is that it is time for us to help those who are most in need. Yes, if one is trapped in a bad school and one is a middle-income parent, one is a wealthy parent, one has school choice. One has an ability to take one's child out of that school and move them to another school. But if one is locked in an inner-city school where there is an academic emergency, those parents do not have that ability. How can we continue to look the other way when we know that there are kids trapped in these kinds of schools? I think that this is an idea worth trying. It is a separate $200 million pilot project for 5 years. Let us see if it works. What do we have to fear from trying this program? It will not deny any school any money that they would already get under Title I and other Federal education programs. It would be in addition to that money. So let us give these kids a real chance at success and a real shot at the American dream that they do not have today.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, on April 4, 1974, Hank Aaron made history at River Front Stadium in Cincinnati by hitting home run number 714 off Reds pitcher Jack Billingham to tie Babe Ruth's all-time home run record. It was opening day and it was Hank Aaron's first swing of the 1974 season. The Cincinnati Enquirer described it, and I quote, ``as a towering shot over the left-field wall.'' Well, I can confirm that because I was sitting out in left field on April 4, 1974, at the Reds' traditional opener for all of major league baseball, and it was the only time I had ever cheered when somebody hit a home run against the Reds. Millions of Americans have felt the same way watching Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, and it did not matter which team Hank Aaron played for to be cheered for. He was doing something bigger than baseball itself. Hank Aaron's achievement reminded Americans that nothing is impossible. It taught us that any individual can do anything if he is willing to make the sacrifices to make it happen. Mr. Speaker, in a few years they are going to tear down River Front Stadium and build a new ball park on the Ohio River, but Henry Aaron's achievement will stand forever, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that the example just given would never happen under the Boehner proposal, nor would it happen under the Dingell-Norwood proposal, and the gentleman well knows that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let us stop and ask ourselves a basic question: Just what is health care reform all about? Is it forcing HMOs to be more accountable? Is it expanding access for the 44 million who do not have health coverage? Is it limiting costs and making coverage more affordable? The answer to all of these questions is yes. Health care reform is about all of these things, access, accountability, and affordability, and we cannot address one without affecting the others; and if we truly want to help patients, we certainly cannot address one at the expense of the other two. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for my colleague the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and my colleague the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), and I know they believe they found the prescription for what is ailing our health system. But, in truth, I believe their bill is poison for our health care system today. In an effort to make managed care more accountable, the Dingell- Norwood proposal would authorize lawsuits against health plans. The trouble is most health plans in America are employer-based. More than 124 million Americans get their health coverage through the workplace, a benefit employers can provide voluntarily, thanks to a law known as ERISA, which shields employers from unnecessary litigation. The system, for all its complexity, has saved countless American lives. Under the Dingell-Norwood proposal though, that would change. Expanding lawsuits against employer-based health plans means expanding lawsuits against employers. If employers are exposed to lawsuits, they are going to stop providing coverage to their employees. It means millions of American workers are going to lose their health insurance at the very time Congress should be working on expanding access to coverage. The Dingell-Norwood bill has other flaws. The authors claim their bill is about giving control to doctors and patients, but it is also about giving control to the Federal Government. Under their proposal, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the IRS, and likely the States, would all have a hand in regulating Americans' health benefits. Granting the bureaucracy these new powers is another quiet step toward the government-run health care system Americans overwhelmingly rejected in 1993 and 1994. They were right to reject it then, and they would be right in rejecting it now. Their proposal has a third gaping flaw, and it concerns something that is not even in the bill at all, and that is medical malpractice reform. Our opponents often cite the experience in Texas and what they have done with their HMO liability reform bill, and in fact there have not been a flood of frivolous lawsuits and exploding costs. But what our colleagues never mention is that Texas passed a sweeping medical malpractice and tort reform law 2 years before they passed their HMO liability. Why should this Congress not do the same? Mr. Chairman, Americans want health care reform. But legislation that exposes employers to lawsuits jeopardizes the benefits to 124 million American lives who get their coverage from their workplace. It expands the reach of big government and slams the door of medical tort reform, and I am not sure that that is what Americans really want when they think about health care reform today. Fortunately, there is an alternative. My substitute, the CARE Act, would punish bad HMOs without punishing the uninsured. We named it the CARE Act because patients want access to care, not access to court. But that does not mean that managed care companies get a free ride. Instead of lawsuits, the CARE Act would guarantee patients the protection of a strong, enforceable and legally binding appeals process. If you or your family is denied care, you can automatically appeal to independent physicians who are familiar with your case and conditions and are completely independent from the HMO. Assuming the physicians rule in your favor, you get the care; there is no delay, period. You have the right to that care and can get it immediately. And if your plan refuses to do what the doctors order, the plan is subject up to $5,000 per day until you get the care, with no caps. Now, Mr. Chairman, if we really want to get tough on HMOs that wrongly deny care, I do not think it gets much tougher than that. But here is the best part. Under our CARE Act, HMOs are punished for the wrongful denials before a patient is harmed, instead of after the fact when it is too late. Instead of waiting until a tragic mistake is made, it ensures that patients get the care they need when they need it, and is that not really what managed care reform is all about? External review gives patients a better option. It also gives us as Members of Congress the chance to be consistent. How can 286 Members of Congress vote to cap Y2K liability for high-tech companies, and then change course and vote for expanded lawsuits in health care? How can three-fourths of the House vote to override the President's veto of securities litigation reform and then turn around and vote to support new lawsuits against employers? How can Members vote for medical malpractice reform six times in the last 5 years in this House that shields providers from lawsuits and then reverse themselves and support expanded liability in health care? The CARE Act is not just an alternative to lawsuits, Mr. Chairman, it is a better idea altogether. So I ask my colleagues, for the sake of the 124 million Americans in employer-based health care, give this plan a chance. And for the sake of the 44 million Americans who have no health insurance, give this option a chance. For the sake of our kids and our grandkids whose quality of life will depend on the health care system of the 21st century, give this option a chance. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to give patients care, not court. Let us not jeopardize the health insurance benefits our constituents enjoy today from their employers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the chairman of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. The last 2 examples that were presented on the floor by the other side would be protected under the Boehner substitute today. The accountability procedures in our bill guarantee access to care. The only real difference between these two bills is that we do not allow lawsuits filed to drive employers into bankruptcy. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Now, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), my dear friend who believes passionately on this issue, and I congratulate him for the 5 years he spent moving this issue along, but we have a very serious disagreement here, because not only are my colleagues exposing health plans and employers to liability, they are jeopardizing the health coverage for millions of Americans because, in the end, it is the health plan and the employer that is going to pay the bill. Now, under our system today, the employers provide coverage for 125 million people. If my colleagues raise the cost to them and expose them to liability, guess who is in danger? Their employees are. That is not what we want to do. Now, the gentleman says, well, employers are shielded. The fact is, under ERISA, employers have to provide a fiduciary responsibility. They have to use discretion on behalf and for the benefit of every employee in the plan. We cannot create a wall that says we are going to punish health plans without hurting employers and their employees. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, under our proposal, an internal review is required, as we have under existing law. Only a doctor can deny care at the internal review level. Then if it is denied, a patient has the ability to go to an external review where an independent medical doctor will determine whether, in fact, that care can be given. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), an esteemed member of the Republican leadership in the House.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, what this debate really comes down to, I think, is whether we are going to have accountability through litigation and lawyers or are we going to have accountability through doctors. To ensure accountability in health care decisions, I think my proposal vests its power in independent doctors to make the right medical decisions. I think the Dingell-Norwood proposal believes lawyers are the best authority when it comes to medical treatment. They believe that employers who voluntarily provide health care insurance to their employees ought to be subject to open-ended liability if someone believes they have been treated unfairly. This reminds me of the incredible logic of trial attorneys suing doctors for malpractice when they attempted to render medical care to injured or ill individuals on an emergency basis. What happened? Doctors and other health care professionals began to stand by and did not apply their knowledge and skills to help fellow human beings for fear of being sued by some enterprising trial lawyer. Across this country, States and local governments had to pass good samaritan laws in order to protect doctors and nurses from doing the right thing in the first place. Well, let me assure my colleagues, if we move forward on court liability for employers, today's employers are going to become the doctors and nurses of the 1970s. They will stand by and no longer offer health insurance to their employees. Instead of having 44 million Americans with no health care coverage, we will have tens of millions added to that list. Now, let us put in place a binding external appeal that will ensure that patients get their care when they need it. As the Washington Post stated earlier this week: ``Our first instinct would be to try the appeals system first and broaden access to the courts only if the appeals process turned out after a number of years to not work.'' My colleagues, we have an opportunity today to do something that is responsible, responsible for our health care system by bringing more accountability to managed care without driving up costs and without creating more uninsured. It is a delicate balance that we walk between bringing more accountability without driving up the cost and driving down access to our system. We have a great system in America where employers are provided health care for 125 million American lives in a shared arrangement in most cases. Unfortunately, the Norwood-Dingell bill today, in my view, will jeopardize the health insurance benefits that millions of Americans get. Do we really want to take that big step off of this cliff without a parachute? Do we really want to take the chance that millions of Americans are going to lose their insurance because we want to open this up to litigation and entreat the trial bar to another new field that they can go out and operate in? I do not think that is what the American people want us to do. They want us to take a responsible approach. They want us to take an approach that will ensure they get the care without driving up cost and without jeopardizing the number one benefit that they appreciate from their employers. Vote for the Boehner proposal.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, when we look at today's health care system, there are two problems that most all of us can agree on, that we need more accountable in managed care, which virtually every Member of this Chamber is supportive of, and we that have 44 million people who have no insurance whatsoever. So as we proceed in this debate, it is clear to me that we have three principles that we have to follow. How do we make sure that we get more accountability in managed care. Secondly, how do we make sure that health care insurance is affordable for all Americans to ensure that all Americans have greater access. Accountability, affordability, accessibility. In my view, we cannot deal with one of these issues without dealing with all of them. We cannot deal with one principle and ignore one. That is why this rule today and this debate that we are having is about accessibility today, and we will deal with accountability tomorrow. When we look at the uninsured, as the gentleman from St. Louis, Missouri (Mr. Talent) pointed out, they work for small businesses. They want to buy insurance, but they cannot afford to do it. When one looks at what we are going to do tomorrow, we are going to raise the cost of insurance. As we add more accountability for insurers, employers, and others, we are going to raise the cost of insurance. That is what the debate earlier was about. We wanted to offset the cost of it. As we raise it, we are going to push more people into the ranks of the uninsured. That is because there is a clear link between the cost of health care and people's access to it. So we have got to move this bill, this access bill today, because whether one has insurance or not, one wants to be protected. We ought to help all patients in America today whether one has insurance or not. I think that the bill that we have today guaranteeing greater access to health care for the uninsured is the first major step that we take. Then tomorrow we will deal with more accountability.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time; and I would like to follow up on his earlier remarks. In America today, about 125 million lives are insured through employer-based plans. Earlier today, we passed an access bill that would give Americans more choice, give them an above-the-line tax deduction for health care that I think will empower them to have better choices in the system we have today and begin the process of developing a more competitive private market. But the fact is today employers do, in fact, provide most of the health insurance that we have out there. I have letters in my office, one from Mike Toohey, a former staffer here in the Congress who now works for Ashland Oil, who wrote to me, and I will quote, ``Because I have leukemia, I am not insurable except through my corporate health care plan.'' Mike went on to say, ``My company's health care plan saved my life and paid for those costs.'' Employer-based health care is what made it possible for James Barton, a retired employee from Tulsa, Oklahoma, to get quality care for his wife after she had a stroke in 1998. He wrote and said, and I will quote, ``During the past year, my company's health plan has been a godsend,'' Mr. Barton wrote recently. ``We could not have gotten by without it.'' Employer-based health care is what made it possible for Simon Scott, a patient from Columbus, Ohio, to afford the expensive treatment he needed when he was gripped by cancer. He wrote, ``These choices were critical to me and allowed me to afford the medical care that I needed. Please oppose any legislation that will cause my costs and those of my company to rise at alarming rates, resulting in less coverage and less ability of my company to provide the quality care that I need.'' That is really what this debate is all about, Mr. Chairman. We have the underlying bill here, the Dingell-Norwood bill, and while the sponsors of the bill are dear friends of mine, and I would never question their judgment nor what their motives are because they believe strongly in the bill that they have before us, it is just that I and many Members believe it goes way, way too far. Employer-provided health care in America today is a voluntary program, started back in the 1950s, then codified in the ERISA act that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) talked about earlier, that has allowed this program to grow successfully. But it is a voluntary program. If we put too much weight, if we put too much regulation, and, most importantly, if we put too much liability, we will drive employers away from offering this coverage to their employees. And when we look at the Dingell-Norwood bill, it does put the Federal Government more in charge of our health care by empowering the Secretary of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services to look at health plans to make sure that they have network advocacy and all other types of Federal mandates. Most importantly, and I think where we will see this debate go over the next day and a half or so, is in the area of lawsuits. Because under the Dingell-Norwood bill not only are health insurers and health care providers liable for insurance, but, in my view, employers are also subject to lawsuits. I do not believe we can sue our way to better health care in America today. The sponsors will say they have shielded employers from any liability, and I will say that they have made an attempt to do that. But the fact of the matter is that under ERISA, employers have to provide discretion. And if they provide discretion under the Dingell- Norwood bill, they are now subject to liability. I think there is another way, a better way to provide the care that Americans want, when they want it; and that is through a binding external appeals process that has severe penalties to make sure that employers and health care plans provide the care that the outside reviewers have determined that the patient ought to get. This independent review, this third-party review, has real binding teeth in it. It allows a reviewer to look at the care that is out there and available and would allow them to determine, within the contract, what appropriate care was right for that patient. If the patient won the fight, they get the care. They do not have to wait around for a courtroom or wait around for a judge or a lawyer to get there. They get the care. And if the health plan or the employer drags their feet, it is a $1,000 a day penalty on that health plan or employer, with no cap. And if they willfully deny that coverage after it has been granted by an external reviewer, it is $5,000 a day, no cap. And while they are waiting, if they are dragging their feet, that individual has a certificate from an external reviewer that they can take and get their care at any medical facility they want to go to. I think this is a much better way to provide the care that patients want without going to court. Let us do the right thing, the responsible thing and, at the same time, not undermine the employer-provided health care that millions and millions of Americans appreciate today.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the week of September 19-25, 1999 was recently observed in my home State of Ohio as Ohio Lawsuit Awareness Week (LAAW). As the House prepares to vote on the critical issue of managed care reform, there is perhaps no more appropriate time to focus attention on the importance of preventing lawsuit abuse and reversing our Nation's transformation into an overly litigious society. Ohio Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (OCALA) has been a leader in this regard in recent years. We owe a debt of gratitude to the more than 5,000 consumers, physicians, taxpayers, small business operators and other professionals associated with OCALA who have dedicated their time and resources to increasing public awareness of lawsuit abuse and the need to improve America's civil justice system. We owe particular thanks to Dr. David Rummel, DDS; Peter Beck; Ken Blair, Jr.; Gerald Miller; and Claire Wolfe, MD, all of whom are members of OCALA's Board of Directors. In recent years Congress has made great strides in the effort to reform our Nation's justice system and ensure that it is structured to protect the rights of citizens, rather than simply the prosperity of the trial bar. Whether the issue has been securities litigation, medical malpractice, or the ``Y2K'' problem, we have been steadfast in our support for bipartisan reforms that seek to restore fairness to the legal system and limit frivolous litigation. Next week, as the House faces the highly politicized challenge of protecting patients and expanding access in our Nation's healthcare delivery system, we must strive to be consistent in that posture. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to all of the individuals associated with OCALA, and to express my strong support for the cause for which OCALA exists. Through the courage and dedication of organizations like OCALA across the United States and the courageous support of legislators who support its vision, we will continue to move toward an American civil justice system that will truly meet the need of its citizens in the 21st century.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate not only the chairman of the committee but the ranking member and all the Members who worked in a very bipartisan way to bring this crop insurance bill to the floor today. It is an important piece of legislation that will, in fact, give our Nation's farmers greater risk management tools that they need given the new environment that we are all operating in. There has been a lot said on the floor today about our farm policy. Like my colleague from Georgia said, we need to remember the forgotten parts of the farm policy that we put in place some 3 years ago. We knew then as we began to move agriculture to more market orientation that it was going to be essential that we work with the agriculture community to provide more risk management tools. That is what we are doing today: This extra money for crop insurance, the program is more flexible, it will work for more farmers, an essential part of what we need to do to make the farm policy that we have work more efficiently. Secondly, we talked about the need to have regulatory reform, so that we bring some common sense to the regulations the farmers have to deal with that do nothing more, in some cases, other than drive up costs for farmers, making them less and less profitable. There is certainly an awful lot of room for improvement that we all need to be paying attention to. But we all know that the real cause of the current crisis in agriculture is what happened in Southeast Asia some 2 years ago when the bottom fell out of their markets, when their currencies were devalued and they were unable to continue buying our commodities at the rate that they were. But an important part of our farm policy was to make sure that we were out there opening new markets for our crops. About 40 percent of what we raise and produce in this country, we export somewhere around the world. If we are not exporting that product, it is going to lay here in our markets and drive down prices. That is exactly what has happened. Not only do we see now some strengthening in Southeast Asia but I think what this House and this Congress and this administration need to get to work on is providing fast track authority to our U.S. trade rep so that we in this country can go out and begin to open markets for our farmers. Until we open markets for our farmers, we are going to have excess production. It is going to lay over the markets and drive down prices. The only other answer is to go back to what we did for 60 years, and that is to get back into this business of the Federal Government telling farmers how much they can plant, how much they can harvest and try to have some type of supply management program run by Washington, D.C. Farmers do not want that, most Members of Congress do not want that. And so if we are going to avoid that, what we need to do is to get out there and open those markets and help our farmers. But what we are doing today is an important part of making that farm policy work, providing these risk management tools to our farmers so that they can better ensure their own success down the road.

Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, I also want to congratulate the chairman of the committee and the ranking member who have announced that we are going to have a set of hearings early next year to look at our farm policy. I think it is an appropriate time to take an honest and a thorough look as to what is working in our farm policy, what is not, and what we as Members of Congress can do to improve it.

Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) be allowed to control 15 minutes of the proponent's time.