Denny Hastert

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, we all support the $1 million allocated for the State Model Drug Law Conferences. We understand the gentleman is open to considering in conference where this funding may be most appropriately obtained to ensure the implementation of an aggressive antidrug strategy.

Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa. I want to clarify the purpose of the gentleman's amendment. Does the gentleman intend to provide sufficient resources for the Office of National Drug Council Policy to hire a staff of 154, including 30 military detailees?

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote from an article in this past Tuesday's Washington Post: Senator Kennedy told his health care aide, ```My political sense is that Clinton gets something--if the health reform bill is enacted--but Dole does, too.' His aide replied, `If it fails * * * it helps us more than them, because we can credibly blame them for killing it.''' It's clear that the liberals in the other body would rather use health care reform as a political finger-pointing game than give the American people portability, or give the self-employed 80 percent deductibility on their health insurance. The big-government liberals would rather play politics than vigorously attack the waste and fraud in our health care system. Yesterday, the Republican Leader in the other body again tried to appoint conferees for the health reform bill. And again, the liberal Democrat leadership blocked him. Mr. Speaker, this has to stop. It's time to stop playing politics with the American people's health--let's move forward with the portability bill.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding citizen of Illinois' 14th Congressional District, Mr. Jim Prutzman of West Chicago. A Navy veteran of World War II, Jim Prutzman has been a successful businessman in his hometown and has served his community as a past- commander of American Legion Post No. 300 and as a past president of the West Chicago Chamber of Commerce. While these activities alone are worthy of honor, though, I rise today to honor Jim for his decades of work with the West Chicago Fire Department. Jim Prutzman began his work with the West Chicago Fire Protection District in 1959, as a paid on-call firefighter. In 1971, Jim was appointed to the fire district's board of trustees and elected treasurer. Shortly after his appointment, the West Chicago fire district hired its first full-time firefighters in 1972, which also resulted in the formation of the municipal ambulance service. Jim Prutzman was elected president of the fire district board in 1981, serving in that capacity for the next 14 years, and retired from his duty with the fire district just a few short weeks ago. In his 37 years with the West Chicago Fire Protection District, the department has grown from a few paid on-call firemen to today's 3 fire stations, 22 full-time employees, 14 on-call firefighters, and 9 paramedics. Jim has been actively involved in that growth, and the people of West Chicago are better protected today because of his efforts. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in honoring this dedicated man, for his commitment and service to the West Chicago community. I join the citizens of West Chicago in congratulating Jim on his well-deserved retirement from the fire protection district, and wish him all the best for the future.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, I appreciate his acceptance in allowing this colloquy or short discussion. I would also like to personally thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wolf] for his, at the outset, agreeability to looking at an issue that is very, very important to many people on this floor. It is also very important to our children and our grandchildren. That is the problem of illicit drugs coming into this country, both through our southwest border and through the Caribbean transit area through Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. We also understand that the Coast Guard plays a very important role in the interdiction effort, and I would like to continue to work with the chairman to find ways we can increase efforts in interdiction; that the Nation must again identify and properly fund an effective drug interdiction effort, and especially in the Caribbean transit zone, as well as in the southwest portion of this country, and to look at the Coast Guard, how we can better work together and find those solutions.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. The statistic is since 1992 to present there has been a 100-percent increase of teenagers that are on, for instance, just cocaine. I think it would be behoove everybody to study what is happening in some of the South American countries, and where there are successes and where there are not.

Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. I have to take a few minutes today to just talk to the House and its membership about an important issue coming before this body. It is called health care security. It is about people being able to move from job to job, whether they are in group health insurance in one job and moved to group health insurance in another job, or they move from group insurance to individual insurance. If you happen to have, or a member of your family has, a preexisting condition, say, a heart situation or some type of long-term illness, you will not be denied health care. Now, that legislation has passed this House and it has passed the Senate, and it is time to go to conference, the principals in the other body and the principals in this House, and talk about a way to fashion this bill so that it will gain the support of the President and the signature of the President, and will become law. The American people want health care security, they want portability. They also want availability in health care and they want affordability in health care. It is something that we have addressed in this piece of legislation. People who are self-employed, they may be truck drivers in my district or barbers or beauticians or farmers or real estate agents or insurance agents even. They would like to be given the same break that big business gets, the same break that if they go out and buy health care for themselves and their family, they can deduct the cost of that health care insurance from their income tax. If they are beyond just self-employed, if they are a small business, they would like to be able to offer health care insurance to their employees that is actually affordable. The bill that we have passed through the House and the bill that has passed through the Senate basically does that also. It changes how individual insurance is offered. The House provision has a provision for medical savings accounts. Medical savings accounts are something that many companies offer today; as a matter of fact, there are 17 States across this Nation, including my home State of Illinois, that offer medical savings accounts so that people can choose the health care providers that they want. They also have an opportunity to make their individual choices. They also have an opportunity to shop the market. Today in health care, if you have an insurance policy, we always say that there is a third party payer. When you go to the doctor's office and the doctor says, you need X, Y, or Z treatment, if you ask the doctor how much does that treatment cost, he will say, do not worry about it. Your insurance will cover it. My colleagues, your insurance may cover it, but you never see the bill. You do not know how much you are being charged by the doctor, the hospital, the health care provider. We think the American public ought to be able to enter into that contract, if you will. We think that they ought to be able to deal not only with the provider, the doctor or the health care provider that has offered the service, we think that you can look them in the eye and ask the price and find out what kind of value you are getting for your insurance dollar. The way to do that is to let people choose medical savings accounts. A medical savings accounts, what happens, if the average cost of an insurance policy in this country, which it is, is $4,500, if you live in Keokuk, IA, it might be a little less than that. If you live in Long Island, NY, it might be a little bit more than that, but the average cost is $4,500. For about $2,200, you can get a $2,000 deductible health care policy, $2,000 deductible, what we call a catastrophic policy. The balance of that amount will go into a medical savings account. Now, a medical savings account is like what we would call an IRA or we could call it a medical IRA. In that situation your dollars go into your savings account. The first $2,000 or $2,100 or $2,200, depending on the policy that you buy, will be paid by you. You choose the doctor. You choose it, and if you do not spend it, you get to keep it. That is the deal that the American people want. They want health care security. They want health care affordability, and they want health care availability. It is time to not be blocked by the Senate. It is time that we go to conference and get this job done.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see consensus has been reached to move ahead with bipartisan legislation that will equip America's capital markets to compete in the global marketplace. The changes in this bill will ultimately make it easier for business people and investors all over this Nation to reach the American Dream. We all know that communications technologies have made the world a smaller place. People and businesses looking for capital, or those looking to invest, are now able to shop around the world. They look for those markets that provide the highest degree of integrity, transparency, and liquidity, but do not require unnecessary or burdensome red tape. H.R. 3005 makes commonsense changes to a system that today, makes the cost of capital generation unnecessarily high and overburdens the Securities and Exchange Commission. The most fundamental change provides efficiency by dividing financial instruments into those that are national in scope and those that are not. This allows the SEC to focus its resources as the sole regulator of larger, national offerings, while the States will carry out the crucial role of regulating smaller offerings. This change enables regulators to concentrate on those instruments they are best suited to oversee. At the same time, eliminating duplicative registration requirements will reduce the cost of raising capital. Thus, more companies will be able to create jobs, pay out higher dividends, and further expand their business. These are the tangible effects of the bill we are addressing today. Thus, this bill moves entrepreneurs and investors one step closer to fulfilling the American Dream. Congress can and should continue to enact legislation that provides hope to the citizens of this Nation.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, the time for health care reform is at hand. Congress, for the first time, will deliver health care reform that will attack waste and fraud, make health care more affordable and make health care insurance more available for the American people. The President has a simple choice. He can do what the American people want, and sign this very important reform package. Or he can work to derail this reform bill and please the left wing of his party. According to press accounts, liberals in the Democrat caucus are deathly afraid of medical savings accounts, because it gives more power to families to make their own health care decisions. These liberals want the Government to call the shots. They want Washington bureaucrats to decide what kind of health care families can or can't have. Mr. Speaker, the American people want health care portability. They want to make health care insurance both available and affordable. And they want to get rid of the waste and fraud that every senior citizen knows is in the health care delivery system. And they want it now. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense reform.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about an increase in the deficit, where we all know the deficits have been increased, driven by entitlements, Medicaid and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we can stick our heads in the sand or put our hands over our eyes and not see the problems, but I think it also pairs up with a philosophy on this other side of the aisle that big government does better, big government knows more; that we should not let people at home in our States, our elected representatives, our Governors, happen to fashion those Medicare plans or Medicaid plans that fit best in their own States. Also, Mr. Speaker, somebody putting their hands over their eyes and saying there is not really a problem with Medicare, it is only going to go broke a year or two earlier than we thought it was going to go broke; it is only $100 billion more in debt than we thought it was going to be last year. That is what the President's own board of trustees said. It is time that somebody fixes it. We should not have this class warfare or geriatric warfare that tries to come from the other side of the aisle.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of rhetoric back and forth in this Chamber today. I think there has been some good discussion of issues. I think that we should talk about medical savings accounts and get the facts out about medical savings accounts and other issues in this bill. But I think this House does not do itself any honor when in my opinion we try to impugn a Members' motives of why an issue is included or an issue is not included. I guess we could go back and forth in this Chamber and point fingers at each other for this issue or that issue or this support or that support, but I think we really need to focus on what those issues are and the positives and negatives, and I will just say that I will continue to watch and in my opinion when we impugn other Member's motives, of either side of this aisle, I do not think that should be tolerated in this Congress, and I will try to make sure that it does not occur.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to take the words of the gentleman down.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Michigan, but he is just uninformed or he does not know what he is talking about. When he talks about smoke screen, it is the incredible smoke screen that is coming up on the other side of the aisle. Medical savings accounts can accrue, true. But when you withdraw, if you withdraw that medical savings account for anything except health care, you pay a 15-percent penalty. Nobody is going to try to accrue this money and then try to pull it out with a 15-percent penalty. That is far above what advantage they get in the tax benefit. Also it is not for rich people. This is for small business people and self-employed people. That is the way the bill was written. Those people who work day in and day out with the sweat of their brow so that they can afford health care for their family and they can have a choice of health care for their family. Finally let me say, when a person is 65 years of age, yes, he can withdraw that money and pay his taxes on it or he could withdraw that money and put it into long-term care. Boy, is that not a problem in this country? Or he can withdraw that money and pay for a catastrophic health care problem in his family. That is certainly a problem, especially if you are over 56 years of age. What the Members on the other side of the aisle are doing is trying to deny senior citizens the ability to have health care security and long-term health care security. That is where the smoke screen is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the debate, especially from the other side of the aisle. It is also interesting to hear the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle that tries to create a class warfare on a piece of legislation that is really for what the American people want. If my colleagues would look at this bill, this does not treat any special interests, it does not take any upper-income group and give them a special deal. What it does is allow working Americans, people who work for small businesses, people who are self-employed to, have a choice. Is that so wrong to do, to give people choices on what they want with their health care future; what they want to do to choose a health care policy that best suits them and their family? A health care choice that they have the opportunity to begin to take care of their long-term health care future if they wish to do that? That is exactly what is in this bill. Mr. Speaker, we give portability and affordability. That was our goal: To let people have the ability to get health care insurance, even when they change jobs, group to group or group to individual. That they are not denied health care because they or their family have a preexisting condition. That is out of this bill. We are there. They have the ability to have that portability. They have the ability to move from job to job. Also, one of the things that we do here is long-term care so seniors who worry about their golden years and beyond those times when maybe they are able to take care of themselves, that they are not thrown out into the issue that they have to give up all of their resources that they are able to take their life insurance, in fact if they had a catastrophic health care problem that they could convert that life insurance tax free into long-term care insurance, and also treats long- term care insurance in a tax issue that is just like any other health care insurance. It is tax deductible. Does that not make sense? I think it makes a lot of sense. Deductibility, for those people who have never had the break in small business, where big businesses can go and deduct their health care insurance as an expense against their business, small business has never had that. Sometimes we have given them 25 percent; sometimes it has been zero, because the Congress has not acted, and then now it is 30 percent. Mr. Speaker, we try to move that to parity. We try to give those people, and we do in this bill, 80-percent deductibility, so small- business people have the ability to go out and buy insurance and get the same break that big businesses get. Fraud and abuse: The American people know that fraud and abuse is one of the biggest issues out there, that one out every 10 health care dollars gets wasted. Wasted. And any senior citizen will tell you that waste, fraud, and abuse is rampant in our system. Mr. Speaker, we address waste, fraud, and abuse in this issue. We take that issue down and say that we are going to draw the line of those few people in the health care providers that take advantage of the poor, that take advantage of the old, that take advantage of people who need health care and get slicked into something that they cannot afford. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], who spoke a few minutes ago, made this big issue and talked about class warfare and something for the rich. I just have to say that that is just not so. Now, I would never accuse that gentleman of not telling everything that he knows, but let me say this: He offered the same motion on the floor when we discussed health care reform, this same piece of legislation, and it was defeated overwhelmingly in this House. And now he is coming back from a second bite of the apple, I think that is a little bit much. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about medical savings accounts. Medical savings accounts in this bill give the people who are small-business people the ability to give their employees a choice. Now, I thought in a democracy such as the United States of America, that choice is really what democracy is all about, small ``D'' democracy. Choice is what people can choose. Choice puts the market in. Choice gives the ability to go out and buy the best program for the best amount of money. Now, if we think government is smarter than the people, if we insist on big government programs, then we would want to deny people choice. We want to deny them the ability to do the right thing. This piece of legislation gives people choice. It allows them to do the right thing for themselves and their family. Mr. Speaker, I salute the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman of the Committee on Commerce, for doing the right thing in this bill, coming out with a piece of legislation that really gives us true health care reform, something that we have not seen in this Chamber for 20 years. It is time we pass it and it is time we pass it in the House version.

Mr. HASTERT. We only have one.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to review this and say we have had a lot of rhetoric, as I said before, back and forth. The gentleman from Rhode Island talks about class warfare, how only the rich. That is completely false. There is no empirical data. That is why we have a study in this bill to look at what medical savings accounts actually do. For the party on the other side of the aisle that supports big government decisions, that blocked out medical savings accounts because they do not want people to make choices, that they do not want people to test the market for themselves and to see what price and what services are best suited to themselves and their families, I think this is a crazy argument. But so be it. What we need to do is to pass this legislation. We need to appoint the conference committee. We need to go ahead and meet as a conference, and then work out what differences there are. It is surprising to me that the same party that blocked in the other body the ability for us to name conference committee members so that we can sit down and discuss this issue is now saying, ``Well, this is an inside, clandestine, bipartisan agreement.'' We had to sit down and go through the conduits to talk to the White House, to talk with the other side in the other body, in order for us to be able to name conferees. It that is not a stalling of the process, when one Member in the Senate can stall and hold up the process for the American people, having portability, having health care choice, having long-term care for senior citizens, when that happens, that is not democracy. We need to pass this bill today.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, that reduces the fiscal year 1997 foreign operations appropriation for the Export-Import Bank administrative expenses by $3.1 million. I support this amendment because it mirrors the Appropriations' National Security Subcommittee's recommendation of reducing the Eximbank's subsidy appropriation by 2.5 percent. It makes no sense to me to increase funds for staffing at the same time that we are reducing the workload of the bank. The purpose of the Eximbank is to expand U.S. exports by assisting American firms. And yet, I question the success of the bank in fulfilling this mandate under the current administration. Most recently, the Clinton administration pressured the Eximbank to refuse assistance to U.S. exporters, while at the same time supporting most- favored-nation trade status for Chinese business. I'm at a loss to see how this helps American businesses. One case in particular is the Eximbank's announcement of May 30 to deny trade credits to American companies attempting to participate in China's Three Gorges Dam project. This decision stands in the way of job opportunities and income for American workers, and potentially, it damages our relationship with China. The Clinton administration has portrayed the Three Gorges Dam project as disastrous to the environment, and detrimental to human rights. However, there are no facts to backup this charge. In fact, the main purpose of the project is to control the disastrous consequences to China's environment and prevent the massive loss of life and property caused by flooding along the Yangtze River. In 1994 alone, flooding along the Yangtze killed nearly 1,200 people and wiped out 2.7 million acres of farmland. Building the dam will end the need of moving millions of people each time there is a major flood on the Yangtze River. The Three Gorges Dam is also desperately needed to enable China to keep up with it's exponentially growing energy requirements. It will produce 18,200 megawatts of clean hydropower, displacing the need for 50,000 tons of low sulphur coal or ten nuclear, power plants. The project will help clean up the air in China, decrease the global greenhouse effect and lower nuclear waste disposal problems. Moreover, the dam will not submerge the scenic Three Gorges--water levels will rise 318 feet but the mountains in the area rise between 2,600 and 3,600 feet high. It makes no sense to prevent the creation of thousands of jobs for taxpaying American citizens by denying a loan that, in the end, would be paid back with interest by a foreign country. Without a doubt, this project will spread prosperity and development into a new interior region of China, providing new opportunities for American firms. Establishing business relationships now through the Three Gorges Dam project would further position American firms to win new business in China for years to come. As Congressman Manzullo has cited, $1 billion in U.S. exports and 19,000 Americans jobs are at stake. I have often heard the argument that there is nothing stopping these companies from competing for contracts without this assistance. That's technically true, but what then is the purpose of the Eximbank if not to help U.S. companies secure the winning bids? This recent decision puts American companies at a disadvantage with their foreign competitors who will most likely receive favorable financing from their government finance agencies. Germany, Japan, Russia, and Canada are already contracting for the project through their consortiums. The administration has supported renewing most-favored-nation trade status for China at the same time it attacks this project. This project, without a doubt, means jobs for Illinois and other states across this country. The shortsighted decision is flawed and detrimental not only to the long-range environmental and human rights concerns of China, but also the competitive, responsible companies that America is offering to the world. Our companies practice high labor and environmental standards. Only the United States has the capacity to bring the kind of technical knowledge to the project that may mitigate many of the concerns raised by its critics. Until I see signs that the Eximbank is fulfilling its mandate, I can not support increasing funding for its administrative expenses.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. First of all, Mr. Chairman, we have a housing bill before us. There is a motion to change this whole system by the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Volkmer]. Mr. Chairman, when I started to look at it, if I did not know my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Durbin], better, I would say this probably smacks of maybe even senatorial politics, but I am sure that that is not the case. On the other hand, when we start to look at the situation, I believe that the ordinance for the city of Chicago prohibits any type of firearm or weapon, possession and use. The State of Illinois prohibits certain types of weapons and use. We also have a requirement of an FOID card, possession, and almost a 6-week waiting period before any type of possession of a firearm. Also, there are various countries in Illinois that have, whether it is valid or not, county restrictions. I am not sure which law that my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, is going to ascribe and make that a Federal Law. Is it the State Law? Is it the municipal ordinances? Is it the county statutes? Mr. Chairman, I think certainly the ability of trying to figure out or to sort out for local and State and county officials, whether you are from the sheriff's office and you have that jurisdiction, or if you are from the Chicago city police, from that jurisdiction, or the Illinois State Police, from that jurisdiction, certainly they have conflicting jurisdictions, and really it makes a mess of the system that is before us, I would think probably we ought to take this amendment for what it is, trying to get a little plus up in an area that some people are not well known in, and let it go at that. I ask that we vote against this.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. We would hope that the budget bill will be marked up next week and considered the following week.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I thank my good friend from Michigan, the minority whip. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that we have concluded our legislative business for the week. On Monday, April 29, the House will meet in pro forma session. There will be no legislative business, and no votes, on that day. On Tuesday, April 30, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Members should note that we do not anticipate votes until 5 p.m. On Tuesday, April 30, we will consider three bills under suspension of the rules: H.R. 1823, to amend the Central Utah Project Completion Act; H.R. 1527, to amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986; and H.R. 873, the Helium Privatization Act of 1995. After the suspensions, we will consider the President's veto of H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act of 1995. On Wednesday, May 1, and Thursday, May 2, the House will consider the following bills, both of which will be subject to rules: H.R. 2149, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995; and H.R. 2641, the U.S. Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1995. It is our hope that the conference report to S. 641, Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act of 1995, will also be available next week. Mr. Speaker, we should finish legislative business and have Members on their way home to their families by 6 p.m. on Thursday, May 2.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.