Denny Hastert

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Absolutely not. The fee-for-service, we believe that our CBO tells us about 75 percent of seniors will stay in the traditional fee-for-service. We think that there is too good an opportunity out there for seniors and seniors who really look at the opportunities they have will move from fee-for-service.

Mr. HASTERT. It is their choice if they want to.

Mr. HASTERT. Nine to ten percent are there and looking at that. When those folks get involved, they have options of getting prescription pharmaceuticals paid for. They get co-payments paid for in many of those plans, and we talked about part B premiums. These options are that the system can even pick up the part B premium for the Medicare recipients. So there are some real pluses there.

Mr. HASTERT. I would like the gentleman as a physician and a practitioner, a person who deals with both patients and the system, one of our options is a medical savings account. Why do you not talk about that medical savings account and how that can affect patients and the system itself.

Mr. HASTERT. So basically, let us say that next year the Federal Government, and we are just using numbers generally, but next year the Government will pay 5,000, average payment per person will be about $5000 in the next fiscal year. So a person could buy a $3000 deductible catastrophic health care policy for about $2,000. Then the Government would put the balance of that $3000, the balance of 2000 from 5000 average, into their medical IRA. That money would be there. They would choose where they want to go for health care. They would choose their doctor, what kind of care they wanted. They would also be pretty responsible then for looking at what the cost of that health care is. They actually would go out and shop because, if they do not spend it, they get to keep it. That is one of the things that would rolL over in that medical IRA account. Then eventually, if they want to use that for long-term care insurance or some other type of health care, they could. But the thing is, it is their money. What a unique situation. All of a sudden, people are protective of those dollars and looking into that when it is their money. I know we have been joined by one of our colleagues who has been a leader in health care for many, many years here, the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. HASTERT. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman at this time.

Mr. HASTERT. The gentleman from Oklahoma, if I could yield to him for a minute, I would like him to talk about that difference and also one of the new innovations we have called provider service organizations.

Mr. HASTERT. I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman from Connecticut joining us for a few minutes. Your work and contribution to health care reform in this country has been legend, and we certainly appreciate you spending a few minutes with us.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I have sat here this morning and listened to Member after Member on the other side trying to shim-sham the American people of what happened as far as Medicare. Well, I guess when you do not have a Medicare plan, I guess when you do not have an idea, you try to distort the issue. As a matter of fact, what you try to do is take some poor, innocent, old people and use them as your sham to bring them as a stage prop, to use the director of Information Services for the National Council of Senior Citizens, who gets almost $70 million of their $74 million budget out of the taxpayers' pocket. I guess that is what you do to misinform the American people, to try to distort the issues. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do in Medicare is to preserve the Medicare system that the President's own trust fund said is going broke. What we are trying to do is give the people of this country a choice and to preserve a system, because they deserve a better way.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, today I will introduce a bill to restore some of the rights to market the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug oxaprozin, which were lost during the 21 years it took the Food and Drug Administration to approve this drug--a period that consumed the entire 17 years of the drug's patent life. This bill is necessary in order to remedy the unjustifiable delay in approving this important drug used to treat arthritis. Oxaprozin, marketed by Searle under the name Daypro, was first patented in 1971, and an investigational new drug [IND] application was filed with the FDA shortly thereafter. Eleven years later, in August 1982, a new drug application [NDA] was filed, but FDA approval was not granted until October 29, 1992, over 21 years after submission of the IND application and over 10 years after the filing of the NDA. As a result of this delay, the patent for oxaprozin expired before Daypro could be brought to market. While it is important that drugs meet Federal safety and efficacy standards, we should not lose sight of the fact that this review process comes at the expense of both those whose illness or suffering may be shortened or lessened, and at the expense of the rights of those to whom our laws have offered the incentives of patent protection for their investments. Patent protection is necessary for pharmaceutical manufacturers to recoup their extraordinary development costs so that they may obtain funds to reinvest into new and more effective products. The bill that I am introducing today does not grant full recovery of the time that was lost while oxaprozin was under review; it does not grant half or even a quarter of that time. This bill provides for an additional 2-year period of protection for oxaprozin. This 2-year period is based upon a thoroughly documented review of FDA inaction during the time the oxaprozin application was pending before the agency. I believe such relief is entirely fair, appropriate and equitable under the circumstances, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] and I have been working on language to refine an amendment that the gentleman offered at full committee. I would like to ask the gentleman to take a moment to outline the purpose of his original amendment.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, of critical importance here is an understanding shared by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] and me that the economic burdens of complying with the competitive checklist fall on the party requesting the interconnection. However, to the extent the rural telephone company economically benefits from the interconnection, the States should offset the costs imposed by the party requesting interconnection. Furthermore, we want to make clear that while H.R. 1555 provides that the [[Page H 8455]] user of the interconnection pay the cost of interconnection, the user in this context is the corporate entity requesting interconnection with a local exchange company. It would be a perversion of the intent if the cost of complying with the competitive checklist would require the incumbent rural telephone company to increase its basic local telephone rates to fund the competitor's service offering.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, a refinement of the Boucher amendment assures that rural telephone companies defined in H.R. 1555 will be exempted from complying with the competitive checklist until a competitor makes a bona fide request. Once a bona fide request is made, a State is given 120 days to determine whether to terminate the exemption. States must terminate the exemption if the expanded interconnection request is technically feasible, not unduly economically burdensome, is consistent with certain principles for the preservation of universal service.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the work of the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] in bringing to my attention a possible unintended consequence of the current title IX language included in H.R. 2127. [[Page H 8346]] As one who has pointed out the unintended consequences of title IX, in general, I certainly do not want to create any possible problems. I commend the strong commitment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut to the promotion of women's athletics and to title IX in general. We agree that women's opportunities must continue to grow. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] to discuss the concern that she has with the current language in H.R. 2127.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of putting this, as I regret in doing it because it stemmed out of a letter written to the Office of Civil Rights on June 30 with 134 signatures asking for clarification. We have never received that clarification. It is not out intent to stop or to limit any activity, athletic activity, but we want to clarify that for schools who are participating. I think this language takes that action, and I ask for a positive vote on this amendment.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I would like to associate myself and address myself to the gentleman, the minority whip. You know, the purpose of this thing, I absolutely support women's athletics. As a matter of fact, my spouse is a women's athletic coach, and I think it has been great, the growth that title IX has brought forward in the last few years. The problem is in my district and in districts across this country, many schools, when confronted, because the law has not been clearly laid out for them, especially in two of the three prongs, they have decided, many schools have decided, not to expand women's sports but to instead cut back men's sports to meet the proportionality rule. That certainly was never the intent of the law. What we are asking in this is for them to set up a more definite, specific language so they can meet those last two wordings of those tests. I think that is certainly something that we can work together on, that I am completely dedicated to and, as a matter of fact, one of the things that has happened across this country, in the gentleman's State of Michigan, my State, Iowa, your alma mater State, we have lost literally hundreds of minor men's sports teams because of this type of cutback, swimming programs, gymnastic programs, wrestling programs, those types of sports. Those participants have lost the opportunity to participate. We are hoping that we can clarify that language and make it easier for everybody to have an opportunity to compete. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I further emphasize the intent of this language is to make sure that OCR issues clear guidance to make the second and third prongs of the opportunities test of title IX usable for colleges and universities. Current guidance is simply not working. We definitely do not want to eliminate funding for the enforcement of important civil rights laws. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I urge my colleagues to support the Communications Act of 1995. It is time to move forward with the most deregulatory and progressive communications legislation Congress has considered in over a decade. The Communications Act of 1934 is a dinosaur that just can't keep pace with the exploding information and communication revolution. Communications industries represent nearly a seventh of the economy and will foster the creation of 3.4 million jobs over the nest 10 years. Thus, every day we delay passage of H.R. 1555, we stifle competition and prevent the creation of these new jobs. If we do not act, the cost to our Nation's economy will be $30 to $50 million this year alone. As a member of the Commerce Committee, I have been closely involved with drafting this legislation. This bill provides the formula for removing the monopoly powers of local telephone exchange providers to allow real competition in the local loop. The long distance companies came to us early on with a list of areas (such as number portability, dialing parity, interconnection, equal access, resale, and unbundling) that give monopolies their bottleneck in the local loop. We agreed to remove the monopoly power in each and every one of those areas in our bill. What's more, we included a facilities based competitor requirement. This means there must be a competing company actually providing service over his or her own telephone exchange facilities. Just meeting the checklist isn't enough--there must be some proof that it works. We've got that in this bill. Bringing competition to the local loop is the best thing we can do for consumers. They will receive the twin benefits of lower prices and exposure to new and advanced services. Every day we delay consideration of this bill is a day telephone customer are denied choice of service providers and the benefits that go along with it. The bill is much larger than the Bell operating company/long distance company fight. The bill is supported by the cable, broadcast, newspaper, and cellular industries. Taxpayer and consumer interest groups such as Citizens for a Sound Economy also support the bill. This is broad based support that we should not ignore. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1555.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I certainly thank the folks in the Committee on Rules for giving me a little time. This is a commonsense approach I think we ought to take. There are reasons why we try make these changes. Let me relate to you a conversation I had with the mayor of Chicago. The mayor of Chicago, a large city, very much dependent on mass transit, was telling me that the city created an industrial park in the middle of the city. They have cleared out some of the old industrial buildings, built new-type industrial buildings that would fit the needs of the city, but the only thing is the shift change comes in at 2 o'clock in the morning. Now, all of a sudden, there are 40, 50, 60 people that need a ride at 2 o'clock in the morning. The contract with the union bus system says, as to the drivers, they have to keep those drivers on a set schedule all night long. They could not afford to do it, but they were prohibited from going out and contracting with a bus company to pick those people up and take them home at 2 o'clock in the morning. Now, there are some neighborhoods in Chicago I would not want to be stranded in at 2 o'clock in the morning, but yet because of the rigidity of this piece of legislation, there is no way out. There is no flexibility. What we are doing, whether it is the authorizing committee or here in the Committee on Appropriations, is trying to find a solution to a problem that exists, a commonsense solution. It is time to do it, and I would ask for the support of the rule and the support of the amendment.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, on the afternoon of July 12, 1995, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 494, final passage of H.R. 1905, a bill making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year ending September 30, 1996. Please place my statement in the appropriate section of the permanent Record.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 526, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that I was unavoidably detained last evening, I missed the rollcall vote on House Resolution 192, which called for the House Inspector General to complete a more detailed audit of the House. Had I been present on rollcall vote No. 525 I would have voted ``yes.''