Jim Greenwood

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from New Mexico has well illustrated that there are a variety of plans that are on the table taking different approaches. This is a hard job. This will not be easily done. We are talking about being able to find billions of dollars, many billions of dollars, scores of billions of dollars on an annual basis for the foreseeable future to be able to do this. We have finite resources. We have many, many competing demands on our budget. We have to do it in a way that makes sense to all of the stakeholders. There is an old saying, which is that it is amazing how much you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. A lot of the political observers who watch what happens here in the Nation's Capitol will say, do not bet on there being a prescription drug benefit. It is an important election year, it is a presidential election year. The Democrats want to take the Congress back and the Republicans want to keep the Congress, and both parties are vying for the presidency, and it will be too easy for the Republicans and Democrats to get into a fight over who gets credit and who gets blame for getting something done or not getting it done. Republicans can fight Democrats, Congress can fight the President, but this is too important for that. As the gentlewoman from New Mexico said, her constituent has a real life problem. This is about, literally, life and death. Our ability to solve this problem in a timely fashion really has everything to do with whether some of our elderly loved ones live or die, whether they live in pain and suffering, or whether they can enjoy their golden years and their grandchildren because they have access to the miracles of these industries. There are also temptations that are nonpartisan. There is a temptation to pick on the various industries that are involved. There is a temptation to say, let us all pound on the pharmaceutical industry. They are a good target. We can beat them up. The fact of the matter is we do not want the pharmaceutical industry to be price-gouging or making excessive profits, but we do want them to be able to continue to provide these miracles, and there is no country that compares with the United States when it comes to our ability with our pharmaceutical industry to make these products. They do not do this in Canada, they do not do this in Mexico, or in many countries in Asia, or more than a handful in Europe. These products are for the most part innovated in the United States of America. We have to make sure that we do not kill the goose that is laying these golden eggs. We think we can bring the price of prescription drugs down dramatically because when we get all of these elderly people and disabled people who do not have the benefit now, get them into the marketplace, subsidized by the Federal government, we will get the price of those prescription drugs down.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Supply and demand.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. GREENWOOD. It takes about something on the order of 9 years and half a billion dollars to bring a product to market, to bring a new pharmaceutical product to market. That is a very expensive proposition. We need to make sure that there are industries in America, companies in America that want to continue to make that kind of investment and take that kind of risk. At the end of the day, an elderly woman who goes to her doctor because she has some kind of ailment and gets a prescription and takes that prescription to her corner drugstore, all she cares about is, can I afford to get this medicine that is going to make me better? She is not out to kill the pharmaceutical industry. She is not out to kill the biological industry or her corner pharmacist, for that matter, or the insurance industry. What she wants to know is, can I afford at a reasonable cost to get this drug so that I can take it home and get better and feel better and enjoy the rest of my days? What we have to figure out here as policymakers is how to bring all of these stakeholders, the medical community, the doctors, nurses, hospitals, the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, Republicans, Democrats, Congress and the President, and above all, listen to the seniors, listen to the seniors and to the disabled who are in need of this benefit so that we can share their wisdom, and get beyond the political credit-taking and partisanship and solve this problem. I would certainly say that any Member of Congress or any president, for that matter, who serves in the year 2000 who can end this year at a bill-signing ceremony seeing that this gets done, and knowing that from that day forward no little old lady, no little old man, walks into any drugstore in America, hands trembling because he or she is not sure they can afford this drug, that will be enough for this Member to retire on, feeling that the time we spent here was worthwhile. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, when I began my remarks, I mentioned that 1965 is when Medicare was begun, and as we look back 35 years, it is hard to imagine now a time when seniors did not have Medicare, when they did not have a guarantee of health care, just as it was impossible for them to imagine looking forward into time what health care could provide now. We are at a particularly wonderful moment in our history. Over just the past 5 years or so, we took a Nation that was plunging into debt, $250 billion a year adding to the Nation's debt, and by 1997 making a lot of difficult decisions, including many that affected the Medicare program and trying to squeeze out some of the waste and fraud in Medicare, and we balanced the budget. Last year, in fact just late last year, we made another huge decision here in Washington. We said we are not going to spend any more of the Social Security trust fund on anything else but Social Security, and that is another milestone that was brought about because of the fiscal discipline that we have demonstrated over the last several years. Now we are taking down debt. We are to the point where by the end of this fiscal year, by next October, we will have paid down over a quarter trillion dollars in debt. So this is a golden moment in American history. The economy is strong. Revenues are coming in. The budget is balanced, and we have an opportunity now to take another leap forward; and that leap forward, I think, involves creating this prescription drug benefit. It is a quality of life item. We have the opportunity to do it, and again there is not any question in my mind that there is enough talent in this town, some of it actually in the Congress, certainly in this staff and elsewhere, enough talent in this administration, talent in both the Republican and Democratic parties and a willingness across this Nation to do this, that we can do this. This is a solvable problem, and if we decide not to care who gets credit for it and work together across party lines, it can and it will be done. I just hope that all of the Members of the House and Senate who can hear the sound of my voice take that to heart and decide that this will be the year that we will do this in a bipartisan fashion, get the job done.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the whole concept of aging is changing dramatically in this country. It was not very long ago that people in their sixties and their seventies, because of the state of the health care, they became feeble a lot faster and were not as vital as seniors are today. That trend can only continue. My mother and father are 78 years of age, and I admit this with a certain amount of hesitancy, but it was just about a year and a half ago that my mother and father and I, on a dare from my father, jumped out of an airplane at 13,000 feet and went skydiving together. That is pretty good for a couple of septuagenarians. I think the baby boom generation expects to extend its years of vitality even farther, and we expect to be still physically able and fit and enjoying life well into our seventies and our eighties and our nineties, and of course the fastest growing segment of the population is those above 100 years of age. Nothing more than the advancement of these miracle medicines, these miracle pharmaceutical products, these coming biological products that will result from the human genome study will continue to enhance the vitality of our elderly. That is why, again, we have this golden opportunity here to make the golden ages more golden for generations yet to come, and I look forward to working with my colleague and, hopefully, we will get it done this year.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) for joining me on this Special Order this evening, as well as our colleague from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and our colleague from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and Representative Cliff Stearns to recognize January 2000 as National Biotechnology Month. It is fitting that in the first month of this new year, at the start of a new century, we look to biotechnology as our greatest hope for the future. Mapping the human genome, for example, is ahead of schedule and nearly complete. That achievement, begun 10 years ago, will rank as one of the most significant advances in health care by accelerating the biotechnology industry's discovery of new therapies and cures for our most life-threatening diseases. Biotechnology not only is using genetic research to create new medicines, but also to improve agriculture, industrial manufacturing and environmental management. The United States leads the world in biotechnology innovation. There are approximately 1,300 biotech companies in the United States, employing more than 150,000 people. The industry spent nearly $10 billion on research and development in 1998. Although revenues totaled $18.4 billion, the industry recorded a net loss of $5 billion because of the expensive nature of drug development. In 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved more than 20 biotechnology drugs, vaccines and new indications for existing medicines, pushing the number of marketed biotech drugs and vaccines to more than 90. Total FDA biotech approvals from 1982 through 1999 reach more than 140 when adding clearances for new indications of existing medicines. The vast majority of new biotech drugs were approved in the second half of the 1990s, demonstrating the biotechnology industry's surging proficiency at finding new medicines to treat our most life- threatening illnesses. Biotechnology is revolutionizing every facet of medicine from diagnosis to treatment of all diseases. It is detailing life at the molecular level and someday will take much of the guesswork out of disease management and treatment. The implications for health care are as great as any milestone in medical history. We expect to see great strides early in this century. A devastating disease that has stolen many of our loved ones, neighbors and friends is cancer. Biotechnology already has made significant strides in battling certain cancers. This is only the beginning. The first biotechnology cancer medicines have been used with surgery, chemotherapy and radiation to enhance their effectiveness, lessen adverse effects and reduce chances of cancer recurrence. Newer biotech cancer drugs target the underlying molecular causes of the disease. Biotech cancer treatments under development, such as vaccines that prevent abnormal cell growth, may make traditional treatments obsolete. In addition, gene therapy is being studied as a way to battle cancer by starving tumor cells to death. Many biotech drugs are designed to treat our most devastating and intractable illnesses. In many cases these medicines are the first ever therapies for those diseases. For example, advancements in research have yielded first-of-a-kind drugs to treat multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis as well as cancer. Other medicines in clinical trials block the start of the molecular cascade that triggers inflammation's tissue damaging effects in numerous disease states. In diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's, clinical trials are under way to test a variety of cell therapies that generate healthy neurons to replace deteriorated ones. Recent breakthroughs in stem cell research have prompted experts to predict cures within 10 years for some diseases, such as Type I (Juvenile) Diabetes and Parkinson's. With more than 350 biotechnology medicines in late-stage clinical trials for illnesses, such as heart ailments, cancer, neurological diseases and infections, biotechnology innovation will be the foundation not only for improving our health and quality of life, but also lowering health care costs. In the past two years Congress has increased funding for the National Institutes of Health's basic research programs by 15 percent per year. We are 40 percent of the way toward doubling the NIH budget. Health- care research, however, is not one-sided. The public funds we provide are for basic research. The private sector takes this basic science and then spends many times more than what the government has contributed to create new drugs and get them to patients. In today's world, biotechnology companies are among the greatest innovators and risk takers. Biotechnology also is being used to improve agriculture, industrial manufacturing and environmental management. In manufacturing, the emphasis has shifted from the removal of toxic chemicals in production waste streams to replacement of those pollutants with biological processes that prevent the environment from being fouled. And because these biological processes are derived from renewable sources they also conserve traditional energy resources. Industrial biotechnology companies are the innovators commercializing clean technologies and their progress is accelerating at an astonishing rate. In agricultural biotechnology, crops on the market have been modified to protect them from insect damage thus reducing pesticide use. Biotech crops that are herbicide tolerant enable farmers to control weeds without damaging the crops. This allows farmers flexibility in weed management and promotes conservation tillage. Other biotech crops are protected against viral diseases with the plant equivalent of a vaccine. Biotech fruits and vegetables are tastier and firmer and remain fresher longer. The number of acres worldwide planted with biotech crops soared from 4.3 million in 1996 to 100 million in 1999, of which 81 million acres were planted in the United States and Canada. Acceptance of these crops by farmers is one indication of the benefits they have for reducing farming costs and use of pesticides while increasing crop yields. Biotech crops in development include foods that will offer increased levels of nutrients and vitamins. Benefits range from helping developing nations meet basic dietary requirements to creating disease- fighting and health-promoting foods. Biotechnology is improving the lives of those in the U.S. and abroad. The designation of January 2000 as National Biotechnology Month is an indication to our constituents and their children that Congress recognizes the value and the promise of this technology. Biotechnology is a big word that means hope.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, along with my colleagues, Mr. Dooley, Mr. Boehlert and Ms. Tauscher, the ``Second Generation of Environmental Improvement Act of 1999.'' This bipartisan bill has two related purposes--to improve the information practices of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to encourage the EPA to experiment with more innovative approaches to protect the environment. Our overall goal is to move our nation toward a performance-based system of environmental protection--a system that will do a better job of protecting the environment, while providing greater flexibility to companies and states to determine how to meet tough, clear environmental standards. Our watchword in writing this bill has been to provide greater flexibility in return for greater accountability. In moving in this direction, we are following the recommendations of a variety of recent reports, including the Enterprise for the Environment, headed up by former EPA Administrator Bill Ruckelshaus; the President's Council on Sustainable Development, the Aspen Institute and the National Academy of Public Administration. We need to allow and encourage more experimentation to see if innovative approaches to regulation will produce the desired results. Our incremental bill will do just that. Mr. Speaker, we are introducing this bill today to spark discussion on this approach to environmental policy, which we think should be at the heart of moderate environmental reform. But we still have much work to do. The bill still needs both technical and substantive work, and we do not intend to move it forward in its current form. Rather, we plan to introduce a refined version early in the next session after more meetings with experts on all sides of the environmental debate. But we think the bill in its current form does indicate the basic shape and principles of the bill that we will move forward. This bill should be of interest to anyone who wants to ensure that we will continue to work to make our environmental protection system as effective and efficient as possible. We encourage anyone interested to comment on this version of the bill, so that we can take those concerns into consideration as we work on the version we will introduce next session.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Planned Parenthood Association of Bucks County (PPABC) on its 35th anniversary, and the fine people who work to ensure the men and women in our area have access to the highest quality health services available. I especially want to thank the leadership of Linda Hahn, CEO, and Sandra Trainer, Chair of the Board, for guiding PPABC in its efforts. PPABC has served Bucks County well. It is dedicated to the principles that every individual has a fundamental right to decide when or whether to have a child, and that every child should be wanted and loved. Each year, Planned Parenthood health centers like the five in Bucks County provide high quality, affordable reproductive health care and sexual health information. PPABC is made up of highly trained, dedicated and thoughtful people. While they come from different walks of life, they are uniformly committed to ensuring that men and women have access to the care they need. Each Planned Parenthood affiliate is a unique, locally governed health service organization that reflects the diverse needs of its community. PPABC health centers offer a wide range of services to its 13,000 patients each year, including providing comprehensive, confidential, reproductive health services; providing education and counseling services which promote healthy human sexuality; and protecting and advocating for reproductive rights and services. They encourage communication between adolescents and parents to help nourish the bonds that hold families together. In our day and age, children and teens must be armed with the knowledge to deal with serious issues such as sexuality, drugs, communicable diseases, and, in unfortunate circumstances, abortion. The men and women at PPABC help guide these difficult decisions, and the people of Bucks County are better off for their assistance. Planned Parenthood Association of Bucks County is committed to helping people become active supporters and advocates for reproductive health. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, they help me understand the needs and concerns of the men and women in my district, and I am better able to use that information to effectuate change and prevent back peddling in this Congress. They are a critical resource for me, and I am truly thankful for their valued input. I congratulate the Planned Parenthood Association of Bucks County for 35 years of dedicated, tireless service, and wish them continued success in their next 35 years.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Last weekend I went to the Doylestown Township Octoberfest, and I was talking to some of my constituents, and a gentleman came up to me and he said, tell me that it is not true that you guys in Washington are getting ready to pass a bill that would allow me to get sued because I provide insurance coverage to my employees; and I said well, we are going to have that debate, and I am going to go down there and try to protect you from that consequence. I am not a lawyer, and I have listened to the debate go back and forth between the lawyers and nonlawyers and doctors and so forth. But here is what common sense tells me. Common sense tells me that under the Norwood-Dingell bill, employers will get dragged into court. Now, not in all cases will they be found liable, but they will get dragged into court, because someone will make an allegation that they were harmed; someone will make an allegation that the employer exercised discretionary authority, and there is the employer, the small employer, sitting in a courtroom. And the first time we drag an employer into a courtroom is the last time that employer is going to provide health care coverage for his employees, because it is not worth it. He does not want to get dragged into a courtroom for trying to provide a benefit for his employees. This is obviously a balancing act. It has been said over and over again, but this is a balancing act between too little liability and too much liability. The Goss-Coburn-Shadegg-Greenwood-Thomas, et cetera, coalition product is the middle ground. It is the exact right, in my opinion, balance between these two extremes. I bet my colleagues, if the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) were sitting here at the dawn of the creation of malpractice liability, they would be about where we are, at best. They would be in the middle. They would be trying to design a system that leaves doctors accountable for this negligence, but not exposed to the maelstrom of liability cases that they are exposed to today.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, when we come to the well of the House to speak, we can make speeches about the things that divide us. And we can do that for partisan reasons or other reasons. Or we can choose to come and talk about the things that unite us and then try to examine our differences. We are, in fact, united within the Republican Party and among Republicans and Democrats on most of what will be debated today and most of what will be debated tomorrow. We all understand that managed care has brought us savings, but it has also put insurance companies between doctors and patients, and that is not good. All of us, all of the plans, all four of them that will be debated agree on that and have good provisions to protect patients. We are not fighting about that. What we do have a legitimate difference of opinion about is the extent to which patients ought to be able to sue their insurance companies. That is a legitimate difference. In fact, three of the four versions that we will vote on, two Republican and one Democrat version, will allow patients to sue their insurance companies if they have been harmed by them, so we are not even fighting about that. The one plan that does not allow suits, as everybody knows, that is going to fail and get the least number of votes of all of them. So now the whole debate about which people will try to make political hay for reasons of elections is really about what is the best structure to allow patients to get accountability and to get redress when they are really hurt, which does not create a feeding frenzy for the trial bar. That is what this is about. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), whom I respect immensely, a good friend of mine, has one version. Our bill, which we now call Goss- Coburn-Shadegg-Greenwood, et cetera, has another version, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) has yet another version. We are going to have a good debate for the next two days. And if we can stop trying to make political hay out of it and try to figure out what is good for the American people, I have a feeling that this House will pick the right and wise position. I advocate for the position that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coburn) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and I and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) have structured. We think it is the midpoint. We think it allows accountability, unlike the Boehner proposal, but it does not allow wide open accountability, which we think would generate too many lawsuits, which would then be settled by the insurance companies day in and day out, raise the cost of insurance, and cause employers to stop offering insurance to their employees because the cost is high. So we think that our version, the Goss-Coburn-Shadegg-Greenwood substitute, strikes the midpoint, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support us in that position.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I think the point here is that if we allow open-ended litigation in health plans what will happen is employers will let their people go, employers will let their people go without insurance because they will no longer be able to afford it. The idea here is to keep the costs down by keeping the litigation down.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, there is a Jesuit expression that says, let us have the children for the first 7 years, and then the world can have them. What that means is that when children in their earliest years are loved and nurtured, and when they are instilled with values and self-confidence, then they will have the strength and resilience that they need to face life's challenges and to resist its evils. The opposite is most certainly true. When children are battered, when children are neglected, when children are sexually or psychologically mistreated and abused, they become weak, they become infirm, they become troubled. It is fitting that I follow the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), because I, too, was a caseworker with abused children. Over the years as I worked with these children, and many of these children appear in my life 20 years later, calling me at home, we find these children, so many of them, not only just in the child welfare system as battered, but we find them in the juvenile justice system as delinquents, we find them in the mental health system as psychopathic or maladjusted, we find them in the drug and alcohol system as addicts, we find them in the domestic violence systems of batterers of their own spouses, and often, too often, batterers of their own children. Then we find them ultimately in the criminal justice system in our jails. This legislation, introduced by my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, is not only compassionate, and it is the right thing to do for the innocent and helpless children of the country, but it is also the right thing to do, because this $10 million or $20 million will become multiplied many times over, for each child that is protected from abuse will be one less child in one of these other social service systems that is not only costly to American society, but causes so much more additional pain.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me, and I thank him, as well as the Speaker, for his fairness in allowing us to bring this to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, the issue of how we finance our campaigns overshadows and undermines every other issue we debate in this Capitol. It distorts our policy with regard to the national defense of our Nation, it distorts and skews our policy with regard to health care, it distorts and skews our policy with regard to environmental protection. Reasonable men and women of this Chamber, friends of mine who come to the floor and argue otherwise, they will argue that when unions or corporations contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money to the parties, that in fact that has no effect whatsoever on the policy that proceeds from this House. I do not believe that, but reasonable people can differ. What is clear, though, is that the fact that there is this question before us undermines public confidence in democracy, and the public's confidence in our institutions of democracy is too important, far too important to act in any way but to err on the side of prudence. Mr. Speaker, the standard for conduct in public office is not simply for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest. It is for us to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest. Clearly, indisputably, the current system creates at least the appearance of conflict of interest, conflicts of interest between what is in the best interest of the American people and what is in the interest of those who donate such large sums to the parties. Shays-Meehan allows us to transcend that conflict of interest. I urge its support.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that the Hutchinson bill is a noble effort by the author and his cosponsors. As far as I am concerned, on the substance, the Hutchinson bill passes all the right tests. It passes all the tests of good policy. Every component of the Hutchinson bill is good legislation. Unfortunately, it fails the one most crucial test, and that is its ability to garner a bipartisan large overwhelming passing number in this House. In fact, in the last session, the Hutchinson bill received 147 votes, 105 votes fewer than the Shays-Meehan bill. The Hutchinson bill was only able to garner 26 Democrats to support it. This is the most partisan place on earth, and everything we do is constantly geared to one party gaining advantage over the other, and there is nothing wrong with that. The two-party system works. But campaign finance reform is like nuclear disarmament. Even if we can find within ourselves the nobility to put our own personal interests aside and not protecting incumbencies, we have to achieve campaign finance reform in a way that lets both sides across the aisle look each other in the eye and say ``This does not give my party advantage over yours. This does not give your party advantage over mine. And that is the only way that we will ever succeed in this effort.'' Only Shays-Meehan meets that test. Unfortunately, sadly, the work of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), as good as it is, does not meet that test. For that reason, I urge Shays-Meehan support.

Mr. GREENWOOD

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

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Smith amendment. As was just said, every day around the world 1,600 women die in post-partum hemorrhaging. They bleed to death. That is 585,000 women every year. It is a holocaust. Many of these women leave behind orphaned children. These women die because they become pregnant when they are too young, too old, too weak, or too soon after their last pregnancies. Every day thousands more infants and children die because they are born into families who cannot afford to feed them or to provide medical care for them. For the past 30 years the developed nations of the world have worked together to stem this awful tide of premature deaths. The program was initiated in 1969 by President Nixon. International family planning has brought reproductive health care to poor, underdeveloped communities across the globe, and where they have, the death toll has plummeted. It is a good, wise, compassionate, and enlightened program. But the Smith amendment threatens that program. It threatens those women and those children. It does so because the reality is no matter how hard local agencies try to provide family planning services to women around the world, some women will become pregnant when they cannot bear another child, and they will seek abortions. The Smith amendment says to these medical clinics, if you provide that abortion, we will take away your contraceptive funds. That is exactly, precisely, and frankly the opposite of what is needed. Where women seek abortions, we should promote contraception, not take it away. The Smith amendment ironically will increase, not decrease, abortions, and it will undermine our international effort to stem the tide of infant and child mortality.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GREENWOOD. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, who is entitled to close this debate?

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), who I think of when I think of the conscience of this House.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield 5 of those 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her to control.