Jim Greenwood

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point, just to make this crystal clear to everyone because I think Americans will be surprised to understand this. In your district, rural North Carolina; in my district in Bucks and Montgomery Counties of Pennsylvania, we can have a physician treating a child for a disease and frustrated because he cannot cure that disease, and somewhere in another part of the country a physician may have treated a thousand children with this disease with a pharmaceutical product that was not originally designed for that purpose, but it works, and it is saving these children. And today under the law, if the maker of that drug wanted to send an article that the doctor who treated the thousand kids wrote in a medical journal, wanted to mail it to the doctor, your physician in your district or my district, and say, ``You might want to see what this doctor over here has done; he's curing these kids,'' it is against the law.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and also for his stellar work throughout this process. Just to follow up, on a bipartisan note, I spend 2\1/2\ to 3 hours today in my office, and I am a Republican, with a Republican staff member, an attorney, a Democratic staff member, and we worked through the bills line by line, Republicans and Democrats, just using our common sense, just using the knowledge that each of us brings to the subject. It has been a joy for me, in contrast to so much of what the House of Representatives has done since I have been in Congress that has been so partisan and had such a biting edge to it, to do it together, Democrats and Republicans, because we know that lives hand in the balance. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], who represents the district immediately to the west of mine. Mr. Fox and I served in the Pennsylvania legislature, and he has been a leader in FDA reform and introduced his own legislation. I would like him to share his thoughts with us.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very good work on this legislation and look forward to its passage. We are very privileged to have with us the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce, who has provided the leadership for this effort, who has given us the green light to move this important package of legislation through his committee and who will now share his thoughts as our leader on this issue. I yield such time as the gentleman from Florida may consume.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. What I would like those Americans who are listening to us and watching us on C-Span tonight to think about is to imagine that their mother or father, their elderly parent, lies in a bed in a hospital, with a condition that is fatal, and the doctor takes you outside the room and says, ``It does not look good for your mom or your dad. It does not look like he or she is going to make it,'' and why. And you say, ``Isn't there anything that you can do?'' And the doctor says, ``Well, there is a device that has been developed in our country, it has been tested in Europe, and it seems to be working in cases just like this, in France and in England and in Italy. And if I had that, if it was legal for me to use that, I would take your mom or your dad to surgery right away, we would implant that device, and I think the prognosis would be excellent. But it has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, it has been sitting there for years, and until I can get it, there is nothing I can do.'' Or imagine your little child, boy or girl, the same situation, in a hospital, suffering, and as a parent you want to relieve that suffering. And the doctor tells you that there is a drug, there is a medicine, it is a wonderful medicine that has fixed these kids up elsewhere in the world, but we cannot get it through the FDA. It is still bogged down there. ``If I could only get that, I could relieve your child's suffering or save his life.'' I think if Americans picture themselves in that situation as sons and daughters of their elderly parents, or thinking about their husband or their wife in that situation, or in the worst case of all, a small child, they would say, somebody has to take care of this. That is what we are doing. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to say that the U.S. Congress needs to take an agency that has been around for 90 years, doing some very good work, and bring it into the next century, so that the spectacular and wonderful drugs that are being developed by the brightest and most dedicated people in our country, who want nothing other than to save those lives, to relieve that suffering, to get that product through the Food and Drug Administration, make sure that it is safe, make sure that it works, and get it to those patients as quickly as possible. If we do that, and we do that because we put politics aside and say that Republicans and Democrats will work together, we will hold hands on this, we will get it done and we will all go over to the White House, Republicans and Democrats, for the bill signing ceremony, that will have made my stay in this Congress worthwhile.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an American hero, Raoul Wallenberg. Raoul Wallenberg risked his life to save thousands of people from the Holocaust in Budapest, Hungary. His legacy is to remind us all of what is truly great about mankind. He selflessly risked his own life to save anywhere from 30,000 to 150,000 Jews from the Nazis. On May 8, 1996, the U.S. Postal Service paid special tribute to Raoul Wallenberg by unveiling a 1997 commemorative stamp in his honor. Mr. Speaker, the issue of creating a commemorative stamp for Raoul Wallenberg was brought to my attention in 1992 when I was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. My constituent, Ilene Pachman, residing in Richboro, PA, asked me to support her national effort to solicit the U.S. Postal Service in issuing a commemorative stamp for this extraordinary man. Since that time, with Ilene's help, we sent two letters to the Postmaster General, Marvin Runyon, asking that a commemorative stamp be issued honoring Raoul Wallenberg. Both letters were signed by over 50 Members of the House of Representatives. Initially, Mrs. Pachman was inspired by the accounts of both Dr. Vera Goodkin, a New Jersey professor saved by Wallenberg, and Angela Adachi of New York, who was his personal aide in Budapest. Later, around the time that the Elvis Presley stamp was being issued, when Mrs. Pachman read that Adolph Eichmann is better know than Wallenberg, she realized the need for and the value of a U.S. Wallenberg stamp. Ilene said that she ``gleaned ideas and found supporters from watching speakers on C-Span and from endless networking.'' All of her hard work paid off, and like Raoul Wallenberg, Ilene did not give up her quest. I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank Ilene Pachman. It is due to her determination and enthusiasm that the U.S. Postal Service as well as all Americans are honoring the memory and commemorating the life of a true American hero, Raoul Wallenberg. Thank you, Ilene.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is not about States rights. This is about State funds. We offered an amendment to this provision that would have, in fact, provided 100 percent Federal funds to take care of this small handful of abortions, and that offer was rejected by the proponents of this measure. What this is about is what becomes of young girls after they are sexually abused by their fathers and their stepfathers and become pregnant. What this is about is what becomes of women after they are brutally raped and become pregnant. Now, the authors of this provision do not believe that abortion is an appropriate response to becoming pregnant as a result of rape or incest, and I respect their right to hold that view. I also suspect, though, that the decision comes more easily to the authors because they are not the victims of these unspeakable crimes and it is not they who are forced to give birth to the children of their assailants. This vote is about who makes the decision in these tragic circumstances, the politicians or the victims. Eighty-four percent of Americans believe that this decision belongs in the hands of the victims and not the politicians. I would submit that any of us who put the term ``Representative'' before our names in this body have a duty to represent the 84 percent of the Americans who hold that view and support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me just close by asking the Members of this body to consider what weighs in the balance: The fertilized egg on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the lives of victims of the most unspeakable crimes. Who should make the decision in this instance? A Solomonic decision should be made by the victim.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, Henry David Thoreau wrote in 1849: Even the death of friends will inspire us as much as their lives. . . . Their memories will be encrusted over with sublime and pleasing thoughts, as monuments of other men are overgrown with moss, for our friends have no place in the graveyard. I am here today to honor the memory of Willard Curtin, who served in this esteemed body as the Representative from my district from 1957 until his retirement in 1967. Mr. Curtin's life was dedicated to public service and his memory should inspire us all. Before running for Congress, Mr. Curtin served as Bucks County's district attorney from 1949 to 1953. Prior to that, he was Bucks County's first assistant district attorney. He ran for Congress in 1956 to succeed retiring Representative Karl C. King. His campaign theme was based on his belief that President Eisenhower's policies were sound and should be continued. He served Bucks and Lehigh Counties during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations. Mr. Curtin retired to Florida where he continued to lead an active life. His grandson will always remember him as the energetic, active, sharp minded man that he was, even to the end of his life. He also will share with his grandchildren this story: One of Mr. Curtin's most prized possessions was his grandfather clock. When he would go away, Mr. Curtin would stop the clock's pendulum so it would not disturb the other residents in his building. Even though he had not traveled in a long time, the clock was stopped 6 minutes after 1 o'clock. The coroner later estimated the time of his death to be at 1:10 a.m. I ask you all to join me in remembering the hard work and dedication that Mr. Curtin gave to this country so generously.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding businessman from the Eighth District of Pennsylvania upon the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his business, Delaware Landscape Stone and Delaware Quarries, Inc. Mr. Busick served in the Air Force in World War II and was decorated as a bomber pilot flying the Flying Fortress B-17. At the end of his active duty in 1946, Mr. Busick returned to Bucks County and started a small quarry in Mt. Pleasant. He continued to serve in the Air Force Reserve and retired as a lieutenant colonel in 1969. In the intervening years his business grew from that small quarry to a company with four operational locations and between 80 and 125 employees, depending upon the time of year. In 1955 Mr. Busick took over an abandoned quarry that has been in existence since 1758. In the first year of operation that quarry was flooded out, but Mr. Busick was undaunted and continued to work for the growth of his business. The company produces decorative stone of all kinds and also building stone for facades. Stone from these quarries graces universities, churches, and commercial buildings all over the country as well as private homes and garden walls. Mr. Busick also sells stone produced by other quarries throughout the United States. It was in 1972 that the company's newest operation was opened near Orlando, FL. That operation, called Pebble Junction, creates most of Disney World's stone work. Mr. Busick and his son, J. Kevan Busick, who is now CBO of the business, have recently created a park in Sanford, FL. The park which is open to the public is beautified with waterfalls, ponds and landscaping stone from their quarries. Joe Busick continues to be active in the business with his son, Kevan, but he is also an avid gardener and staunch defender of the environment. He has turned more than 300 acres of his own land into a wildlife preserve to protect animals from the rapid development taking place in our district. Mr. Busick has contributed much to our communities through his successful business and through his many other endeavors.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, tonight I had longstanding plans to be with a very special group of my constituents from Bucks and Montgomery Counties. I was very much looking forward to being there. But tonight's business was far too important to miss. What we have done tonight is literally make a down payment on balancing America's budget, a project that this side of the aisle has worked on very hard for all of this year. We have not met our commitments. We have not reached the accord that we had hoped to reach with the White House. But what we have done tonight in a bipartisan fashion, with the agreement of the President, is to agree to agree on those things where we do not have a difference of opinion, and we have done that. But our work is still cut out for us. Mr. Speaker, we must reach accord, we must compromise, we must find a way to reform our entitlements, to reform our Medicare system, to save it from the disastrous bankruptcy to which it is headed. We must transform our welfare system into one that offers not a handout, but a hand up. We must reform our Medicaid system, which is creating financial havoc for all of the States. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we can do this. But it will take a spirit of compromise, the same bipartisan spirit that we evidenced tonight on the floor, Republicans and Democrats working, the Congress and the President, getting beyond their differences and becoming less entrenched and working in the spirit of compromise. I believe the American people expect that from us. I believe the American people deserve that, and I believe for our children's future we must do that.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who preceded me, the gentleman from New Jersey, protests that the bill before us in fact does not fairly represent the President's positions and wonders why we bring this vehicle to the floor. The reason we do is because the President has never submitted a budget that actually reflects his positions. He has never done that. The story really begins in 1992 when Bill Clinton ran for President. He made every promise anyone ever asked him to do in order for votes. He promised he could balance the budget in 5 years. He promised a middle-class tax cut. He promised to spend more money on virtually every program in the country. The fact of the matter is, and the President knows it and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know it, it is impossible to do that and balance the budget in 7 years scored with honest numbers. It is impossible. That is why the President has to this date never walked into the room with a document that balances the budget in 7 years, scored by honest numbers. He has never done that to this date, and it is nearly Christmas. So my colleagues and I, out of a sense of frustration, to show the country that the President of the United States has not even submitted a budget that his party will support, bring it to the floor today to show that the President of the United States remains, this late in the year, bereft of a plan that lives up to the conflicting promises that he has made through his campaign in 1992 and the conflicting statements that he has made throughout his tenure as President. This is a bad bill. We are waiting for an honest bill from the President of the United States.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 325, and I encourage every Member of the House to support this important bipartisan legislation. The hearings conducted by the House Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, on which I serve, provided us with an important opportunity to identify provisions in the Clean Air Act which were imposing undue hardship and economic costs on the States, businesses, and individual motorists. There was universal agreement that the Employer Trip Reduction [ETR] Program was overly prescriptive and of questionable value in terms of improving overall air quality. The Employer Trip Reduction Program requires all employers with 100 or more employees in severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas to reduce work-related vehicle travel by 25 percent. The Employer Trip Reduction Program is based on the theory that a reduction in the number of employee trips to and from work would result in reduced air emissions from mobile sources. It was assumed by the authors that this reduction in air emissions would, in turn, assist the Nation's most polluted areas in complying with national ambient air quality standards. If these assumptions proved to be true, I would oppose this legislation to repeal the program. But witness after witness, some of whom have done extensive computer modeling, have made compelling arguments that it is nearly impossible to devise plans which meet the required reductions. Furthermore, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Mary Nichols, has stated that the air quality benefits from this program are ``minuscule.'' In my district, companies have struggled for years and spent millions of dollars to develop plans to comply with the ill-conceived Employer Trip Reduction Program. Nationally, this program has a net social cost of $1.2 to $1.4 billion a year. And for this enormous sum of money, the program would only provide marginal environmental benefits, while imposing real hardships on both employees and employers. June Barry, vice president of human resources at Betz Laboratories in Trevose, PA, located in my Congressional district, testified in March that: Many of our work force are members of dual career families. A significant percentage of our work force goes to school at night to pursue graduate education and undergraduate degrees. Are we responsible in emergency situations dealing with child care and elder care and education and the variety of other problems that people encounter to get the employee to their family when car pools don't work? Since our business is worldwide, the majority of the professional work force cannot leave at a preappointed time, mainly due to customer calls and servicing the customer. What does forcing people into car pools really mean? It mans that regardless of whether you have a family obligation, church obligation, night school or a variety of other things that you do to and from work, the Federal Government is going to tell you when you can go to work and when you can leave; that you have to hop into a van pool or a car pool despite your individual needs or obligations * * *. H.R. 325 makes the ETR program a voluntary program. The States would still have the option of implementing such a program, but this bill would give them the power to develop programs that best meet the needs of their residents. I commend Chairmen Bliley, Bilirakis, and Barton, as well as Congressmen Manzullo and Waxman for their efforts, and encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report to accompany S. 440, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. Certain provisions in this report are of particular importance to my constituents and to all of the citizens of [[Page E 2256]] the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Existing regulations implementing the Clean Air Act would force Pennsylvania to accept a centralized, test-only auto emissions inspection and maintenance program in order to be deemed in compliance with that act. The test-only program would require citizens to bounce back and forth between test centers and auto repair garages and would leave auto technicians guessing about whether their work was successful in addressing their customer's problems. The citizens of Pennsylvania voiced their extreme dissatisfaction with such a program when it was proposed by our previous Governor, and the State legislature repealed the statute which provided for that program. Provisions in this conference report eliminate the arbitrary automatic 50 percent penalty in emissions reductions credit that the regulations would impose on States that preferred a decentralized approach. While I was not a Member of Congress when the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments were enacted, I do not believe that Congress intended to require the one-size-fits all program that these regulations force on the States. The elimination of this penalty would restore to the States the flexibility that Congress intended that they have in creating programs that will make the most sense in their States. Additionally, under the provisions, States like Pennsylvania whose legislature has not yet passed enabling legislation will have 120 days to do so, as well as, to propose accompanying regulations. The Congress is aware of the burden imposed upon Pennsylvania by this timetable since it coincides with the time in which the Pennsylvania legislature must also develop a budget that must be enacted by June 30. The parties to the agreement are aware of Pennsylvania's concerns with the small window and intend to work with them. We also hope that EPA will be flexible in working with Pennsylvania as it develops its plan. Pennsylvania's current Governor, Tom Ridge, has proposed a decentralized test-and-repair program that he believes can meet the goals of the Clean Air Act without visiting undue hardship and inconvenience on the motorists and auto repair businesses of Pennsylvania. The inspection and maintenance provisions in this conference report would allow Pennsylvania to complete the design and implementation of a program on this decentralized basis and would allow that program to be judged on its actual performance over an 18-month period, rather than by an arbitrary rule. I believe that reducing ozone pollution and improving the quality of the air that we breathe is of great importance to my constituents and to the rest of the citizens of Pennsylvania. I also believe that the States know what will best work to achieve the goal and should have the latitude to design programs that make sense for their citizens. I believe that these provisions give that needed latitude to Pennsylvania and to other States that are currently wrestling with this problem, and I urge the adoption of the conference report.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon] for a question.

Mr. GREENWOOD. The medical savings account is a new component of Medicare that we have included in this reform. Those seniors who choose it would have deposited into their medical savings account a number of dollars that would average about $5,000 across the Nation; the first portion of that deposit would be used to buy catastrophic or major medical insurance that would cover them above he deductible. Then the senior gets to use what is left in the account for his or her medical benefits, go to whatever doctor or hospital he or she wants. Once the deductible is reached, then in a year in which that particular individual has high costs, then the medical, the catastrophic, coverage would kick in and they would have no more out-of-pocket costs whatsoever. In a year in which she was particularly healthy, managed her costs and did not go to a doctor very often, she would be able to keep the balance in the medical savings account. It is a good opportunity for savings for those seniors.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Well, of course, there are. Despite all of the rhetoric to the contrary, we are actually taking, right now, we are spending on average $4,800 per each beneficiary in the Medicare Program. Our plan increases that about 5 percent each year for a 40- percent increase over the next 7 years. So 7 years from now we will be spending $6,700 for beneficiaries. It is a huge increase. What we are doing is bringing down the unsustainable inflation rate which is bankrupting the system.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year we got some very bad news for Americans and senior citizens. The trustees of the Medicare funds told us that under all sets of assumptions the fund goes bankrupt, and it goes bankrupt in 7 years. Taking our responsibility very seriously, we Republicans went to work. We gathered with senior citizens, with experts from around the country, and we said, what can we do? Is there any good news? Can we fix the situation? We found good news. We found that health insurance costs for working people, not retired people, were going down. Inflation rates at 10.5 percent in Medicare are killing it. The private sector using intelligent new programs have brought the inflation rate down below to virtually zero. We said the good news is this. We can preserve Medicare, we can preserve fee-for-service options for everyone who wants to stay that way, but we have new and exciting options. Mr. Chairman, my mother and father have chosen the managed-care option. They love it. They save $1,000 a year each because they no longer buy MediGap insurance. They have new prescription drug benefits. They get all of the referrals they want. They are delighted. This plan is very straightforward. We preserve fee-for-service, we increase the per beneficiary expenditure from $4,800 a year to $6,700 a year, and for those seniors who want new choices, we have excellent new choices in managed care. This is a spectacular bill. Americans will be proud of it. Senior citizens love it. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, just a little while ago I had a young man, a sophomore in high school, down here for a leadership council meeting. He was sitting in my office and we were having a little chat. He looked up at the screen and he heard one of the Members of the other party speaking. He said, ``Is that true?'' I said, ``No, that is not true. That is a lie.'' He said, ``Are they allowed to do that?'' I said, ``They are not supposed to, but they do.'' Half of our job today is to try to correct these misstatements. There have been an awful lot of statements about this bill, weakening the ability to crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse. Here are the facts: Our bill creates a new criminal statute, outlaws fraud, provides for fines of up to $500,000. Their bill limits the penalty for that offense at $50,000. Our bill says if you make a false statement there is a 5-year prison term, up to a $500,000 fine. The substitute limits that fine to $50,000. We make a new crime of theft and embezzlement. We make it a felony that carries a 10-year prison term and a half million dollar fine. The minority's substitute makes no mention of this crime. The same thing on bribery and graft. Our bill, there is a half million dollar fine, 15-year prison term. Nothing over there. Our bill, obstruction of criminal investigation of a health care crime, a prison term, a half million fine, and nothing from the other side. Our bill is the toughest bill in the history of the Medicare Program on waste, fraud, and abuse. We ought to support it for that reason, if for no other.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, as has been so often the case in this long day's debate, Republicans have to come to the podium time and time again to correct some of the misapprehensions left by the other party. My good friend, the gentleman from California talked about what a terrible thing it was that even though we keep the part B premium at 31.5 percent, it goes up a little bit in dollars. It goes up a little bit in dollars. Well, I think the gentleman needs to be reminded of something. During the 30 years that the Democratic Party presided over Medicare, the part B premium increased 1,500 percent. It started out at $3. As the Democratic Party allowed the cost of this program to inflate and to inflate out of control, it has been they who have caused the part B premium to increase. Another statement that I think needs to be made for the record: Repeatedly today the Democratic Party has tried to have it both ways. We are not paying doctors enough, they say. We are not paying doctors high enough fees, we will drive them out of fee-for-service and into managed care, and then 2 seconds later they turn around and say, we have made some sort of a deal with the doctors to pay them too much. The fact of the matter is that the substitute before us treats physician fees almost precisely the way our bill [[Page H 10459]] does. Physicians will make lower fees under the Republican bill than they would have otherwise, and that is consistent with what the Democrats have been trying to do. Another inconsistency on fraud and abuse. Our plan makes false statements in health care a felony. The Democratic substitute leaves it as a misdemeanor, just like a speeding ticket. After listening to the Democratic debate today, I understand why they do not want to increase this penalty. Mr. Chairman, this is a short-term game for the minority party, because the fact of the matter is that within a few short months the Republican leadership in the Congress and the President of the United States will resolve this issue through negotiations, and I guarantee you that the negotiated product will look very much like the bill that we have presented to the House today. When that bill is signed, it will go into effect, and very early next year the senior citizens of America will live under this proposal, this reform that we have brought to the floor, and they will love it and they will thank us for it, and I think they will reelect us for it as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr], a fine new freshman Member of the House who has contributed significantly to the bill. (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)