Denny Hastert

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. My question, Mr. Chairman, was based, and I understand we are going to hear these amendments, but there are independent issues on each side of this bill, or these two pieces of legislation. The preprinted amendments, which was the rule, asked that those amendments have preference.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, certainly what we have before us this evening is the other half of a very important piece. If we are going to look at the totality of drug abuse in this country, we certainly have to look at the supply side where drugs come from, how they come across our borders, but we also have to look at the other issue, and that is the issue of demand, and how do we stop demand in our schools, in our neighborhoods, on our highways, in our prisons. How do we get at that? The gentleman who is the former chairman of the Committee on Commerce went at great length, and I think he has great concern, but we are trying to solve the problem. As the gentleman would know, this covers across the jurisdictions of six committees. Have there ever been hearings? Yes. I will tell my colleagues, in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, we have had multiple hearings on this issue. This bill does entail areas and titles that deal with the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Act. Yes, it is time that we probably ought to authorize something that we have appropriated for. That is the rule, and that is the law, and that probably ought to be done. We talk about a Drug-Free Workplace Act. That is certainly one of the components that we want to have in this country. We talk about Drug- Free Teenage Drivers Act. We talk about the Drug-Free Prisons and Jails Act, Drug-Free Schools Quality Assurance Act. We talk about Drug-Free National Clearinghouse Act, a Drug-Free Parents Empowerment Act, and go on to Antiaddiction Medication Development Act, and also a Commission on Role of Medication Education in Reducing Substance Abuse. We all talk about Congressional leadership and community coalitions, and we talk about reduction and rejection of drug legalization that is rampant in this country and certainly moving further and further by some interest groups into our cities and the reorganization of the Federal demand reduction efforts. Yes, this bill certainly does have a wide jurisdiction. It covers a lot of issues. It covers cross-jurisdictional areas. We have been very pleased to have the chairmen of those committees have input, have their staffs have input, and to work through and make sure the resources are there to get this job done. But I have to tell my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan does bring up the exclusivity of drugs. We have taken that out. It is not in the bill. It is not in the manager's amendment and exonerated from there. I think that the process certainly has worked. We have perked up some of those issues. What we need to do now is move forward and to try to put together a holistic anti-drug program so that we can really have a drug-free America. What is a drug-free America? There is seven or eight areas that we have to look at. We have treatment. We have to deal with treatment. It is sad that those folks who already have been addicted by drugs need to be able to have the treatment. It also reduces demand. We need to do the community prevention that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has worked on for years and has been a leader in this Congress in doing prevention and community prevention and school prevention. Years of work. We also have looked at the whole area of law enforcement. Yes, we need to have better communication between our law enforcement agencies, people working together and communicating together. We have to do a better job on our borders, and we talked about that in a bill earlier today. We have to do work on areas where these drugs come from. One of the things that neither this bill or the other bill does but we have to deal with, and it will be coming on the floor of the House because it did go through multiple committees and we hope to have that bill on the floor before it is too late to move it, but it is money laundering. We would not have people growing coca plants or heroin through poppy plants, we would not have them manufacturing it, we would not have them smuggling it, we would not have them remanufacturing in Colombia and Mexico, we would not have them moving across the border, we would not have them distributing it, all those things cost a lot of money, if they did not get $50 billion or $60 billion off our street corners every year and half; that profit ending up in the pockets of drug lords outside this country. What would we have to do? The next step, and it is not in these two bills, is money laundering; and we have people working on that as well. But we have to look at the holistic approach. If we are going to stop drugs and we are going to be serious, instead of blathering about what is not in the bill, if we are going to be serious about stopping drugs in this country, we need to take a holistic approach, we need to do the demand side, which the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has done a great job at, but we have to do the supply side as well. So I commend the Committee on Rules for bringing forth this rule. I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and other Members of the task force for putting in hours and days for trying to put a quality piece of legislation together. I certainly hope that we can pass this rule and pass legislation.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I designate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) to control my time.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. I want to take a minute, I will not take long, and talk about the substance of the bill because I think the quality of this bill stands on its own. I just want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, who is cosponsor. He sits with me on a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and we have had hours and hours and hours of hearings on this. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Elijah Cummings), who is not here; that gentleman certainly has a passion about what are the problems in his area; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Rob Portman), who has done a wonderful job, and the other members, such as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mark Souder), and others on our committee who have worked at this not just days and months, but literally years to get something done. I think we are finally coming to fruition. There are two pieces to this issue, certainly the supply side, but the most important for our communities, so moms and dads and teachers and preachers can get together and get the job done, and that is demand. I salute all these gentlemen and look forward to voting on this bill.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this piece of legislation says that basically the District of Columbia should not and shall not make marijuana a legal substance. Of course, marijuana federally is an illegal substance. This is a Federal district. I think that is just logical. Let us talk a little bit about what marijuana is and what it does. If we think that kids should not smoke tobacco, then I think it is a logical step that probably we should not make this available for kids or anybody to be smoking marijuana. A lot of people say marijuana produces no ill-effects to the people that use it. That is a fallacy. We find that marijuana affects motor coordination, reasoning and memory, and marijuana has a much higher level of carcinogens than tobacco. Some people say marijuana is not a dangerous drug. Let me tell you, a study of patients in shock trauma who have been in automobile accidents found that 15 percent of those who have been in a car or motorcycle accident have been smoking marijuana. Seventeen percent have been smoking both marijuana and drinking. When the City of Memphis, Tennessee, tested all reckless drivers for drugs, it was discovered that 33 percent showed signs of marijuana use. Now, I think this is just a logical step. If we want a drug-free America, if we want a drug-free workplace, if we want drug-free prisons and drug-free schools and drug-free highways, we probably ought to have a drug-free capital, to say to prohibit the legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia, where millions of our constituents come, year in and year out, day in and day out, week in and week out. They ought to be safe. We ought to do our best, not just for the safety of the citizens of the District of Columbia, but for the safety of our constituents who come here to visit, to come here to learn, school kids that come through this Capitol, and certainly people who come here to do business, the country's, the Nation's business, day in and day out.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that we are at the crossroads at the terms of the decennial census. Either we will pursue a census with the goal of actual enumeration or we will allow the Clinton administration to gamble on a population polling scheme with the stated aim of not even trying to count everyone in the system. I am sorry my good colleague from Illinois talks about bringing in racism in this thing. Not at all. What we really need to do is to look at this issue and make sure that every American is counted. We need to make an extraordinary effort to make sure that every American is counted. Every American should stand up and be counted in this country, not to be some statistic. What really happens in actuality, you take 90 percent of the people, those people who turn in their forms, that do the things they were requested to do, and then if you have 95 percent of the people that turn this in, you throw away 5 percent. You uncount people. That is wrong. That is absolutely wrong. It should not be done. Then they take a statistical guess at who makes up the rest of that 10 percent. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, what we need to do is what is right for the American people. We need to count the American people, we may need to make an extraordinary effort so that every American is counted, and that is in the cities and countryside and suburbs and everywhere, that we have a true representation of who the American people are, who that American portrait is, because it is tied to something else. It ties the representation of this House. And, if we guess who the American people are, then we guess who should be represented in this House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough for the American people. We need to move forward, we need to not take the advice of Barbara Bryant, who was the person who headed the 1990 Census that some people say 5 million miscounted or 9 million miscounted. We need to go forward and count and do the job that cities like Milwaukee and Indianapolis and Cincinnati did do, and even the guesstimate of the 5 million people was wrong. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to be wrong on the 2000 Census. Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman of the House Subcommittee which formerly had jurisdiction over the Census Bureau, I rise in opposition to the Mollohan amendment. I am convinced we are at the crossroads in terms of the decennial Census. Either we will pursue a Census with the goal of actual enumeration; or we will allow the Clinton Administration to gamble on a population polling scheme with the stated aim of not even trying to count everyone. I think it is important that the American people understand how the Clinton Administration is proposing to conduct our Census. Rather than trying to count people one-by-one, the Census Bureau is proposing a complicated, and highly risky, population polling scheme. In essence, they propose to count 90 percent and guess the rest. Why do they favor such a risky scheme? When asked, the Census Bureau claims ``trust us'' it will be more accurate and cost less. I beg to differ. While I wholeheartedly support both these goals of saving taxpayer dollars and making sure everyone is counted, I am not convinced that polling is the solution. In fact, the more I understand about the Administration's plan, the more I am convinced that polling will lead to a less accurate and ultimately more costly Census. Or, more likely, a failed Census. We have a basis to judge the Bureau's claim that polling will lead to a more accurate Census--the Post Enumeration Survey conducted during the 1990 Census. The results of this guesstimate suggested that 5 million persons were not ``counted.'' The only problem is that these so-called ``scientific'' calculations were wrong. Because of a glitch in the computer software, 2,500 cases were misidentified. While 2,500 cases in a census of 250 million seems trivial, because of the use of sampling this mistake was magnified many times. In 1990, once the error was identified, the Census Bureau reduced it's estimate of the undercount by a million persons. As the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted just last week, ``garbage in, garbage out.'' As disturbing as the potential for technical errors is--and the General Accounting Office noted that similar software problems persist--I am particularly concerned about what will happen to Census forms turned in on time, by real people. Because of the use of statistical adjustment, real people will be deleted from the Census. Let me repeat--the Clinton Administration proposes to delete real people from the Census. Once again the 1990 Census poll illustrates this point. Had we used statistical adjustment for the 1990 Census, people in 9 counties in my home State of Illinois would have been deleted from the Census. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they would have been dropped from the Census because some poll said they did not exist, even though they turned in their forms--this is wrong. But don't take my word for it, Howard Hogan, the Acting Chief of the Decennial Statistical Studies Division, admitted that nearly 1.5 million records would have been subtracted had adjustment been used. To me, the Census is not just a process. It is a decennial portrait of the Nation. Every 10 years, each person has the affirmative right to be counted. What do we say to the person who lives in Elgin, IL, who says ``I am a 24-year-old American of Irish descent, who lives in an apartment with my husband and 3-year-old son, and my form was deleted from the sample?'' I, for one, am not willing to tell her: ``Don't worry. Although, we did not count you, we polled people like you and our odds of guessing your information correctly are quite good.'' I ask you, how can this be more accurate? I have pointed to several problems I see with the Bureau's plan to supplant enumeration with polling. I also have pointed out that our experience with polling during the 1990 Census was not a good one. Although the Census Bureau assures us that we should not worry, that the problems of 1990 are in the past, I remain unconvinced for a variety of reasons: First, the Census Bureau has not solved many of the operational problems which plagued the 1990 sampling plan. During the 2000 Census, the Bureau plans to poll 750,000 households in less time than it took them to poll only \1/5\ of that number in 1990. And, given the strict deadlines that the Bureau faces to get the population numbers reported--at the same time Americans will be struggling with their tax forms--shouldn't we be concerned about quick fixes, made on-the-fly, to the adjustment models in order to get the results done? Do we really want this much power in the hands of a dozen people at the Census Bureau? Further, a critical element of the population polling scheme, the Master Address File, is seriously flawed. The GAO pointed out that, for two test locations in 1995, the Master Address File did not include about six percent of the addresses identified through field verifications; and that some of the addresses belong to commercial buildings, not households. How can the Census Bureau conduct a random poll of all the households in America if it can't even identify where people live? Finally Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the potential for political manipulation in this plan. Although the Clinton Administration has assured us that politics will not be part of this census, I am not convinced. They have said ``trust us'' before, remember Citizenship USA. For instance, the decision to count only 90 percent of the population is itself an arbitrary figure. I have heard no scientific rationale why 90 percent is the magic number. What if they are not able to reach this goal? Does this mean that the Census will have failed? Not according to the Census Bureau. The dirty little secret of this plan is that the poll, not actual enumeration, is their first priority. In short, under the Census scheme proposed by this Administration, actually counting people is incidental to the final count--our population, and it's characteristics, will be determined by polling guesstimates. Why did the Census Bureau decide that they needed to count 90 percent of the population? Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that this figure itself was chosen for political reasons--it was the smallest number they felt the Congress and the American people could swallow. The plan to count 90 percent is a fig leaf, a subterfuge, a sham designed to cover-up their population polling scheme. Make no mistake about it, the final numbers will be determined by a poll and they will not be dependent in any way, shape, or form upon actual enumeration. Furthermore, if for any reason the polling scheme fails, we are up the proverbial creek because the Census Bureau will have stopped counting at 90 percent. Let me be clear, I strongly support the goal of a more-accurate census. However, I believe we can accomplish this using methods we know work. First, the linchpin of any good census plan, is to insure that the Master Address File is accurate. As of this date, we have no assurance that this will be done in time. Secondly, we need to engage in a significant outreach program to get local and state officials, as well as community leaders, involved in the census. Finally, we need to engage our local communities. We need to organize census events and educational programs. We need to reach out to minority leaders. We need to assure people who, for whatever reason view participation in the Census with suspicion, that all their specific information is confidential. Mr. Chairman, I know we can do an accurate Census; one in which the goal is to count everyone--certainly not count some and guess about others. As Chairman of the Subcommittee formerly with jurisdiction over the Census, I asked the Commerce Department's Under Secretary in charge of the Census a simple question: If a bank teller gave you a stack of one dollar bills and told you that he thought that there were $1,000 there, how would you react? Would you accept the guess, or would you count them? With reluctance, the Under Secretary finally admitted that in order to be sure he got all his money, he would count it. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more. In order to be accurate, let's count all the people in 2000 and not bank our future on a population polling scheme. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Mollohan Amendment and to support an accurate count.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 2281, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I am very pleased that Chairmen Bliley, Hyde, Coble and Tauzin were able to reach a compromise on this bipartisan bill. We all know that the strength of our copyright laws is fundamental to making our economy a success, while also allowing ``fair use'' of protected works for the common good. Just because an authorized product is in a digitized form, we should not hinder a child's learning at St. Charles Public Library, or complicate an academic's research at Northern Illinois University, or prevent a high-tech engineer in Illinois from improving innovative products. Specifically, this legislation includes new terminology vital to better resolving the issues ahead of us. The bill language on . . . ``no mandates on design'' . . . . reverse engineering'' . . . ``playability'' . . . and ``definition of protection measures'' . . . will provide the framework for continuing the proper balance in the law. By adopting these new terms, we can anticipate future policy concerns, and create a fair and balanced approach to solving the questions of the digital revolution.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Speaker. I want to express my condolences and heartfelt sympathies to the families of our fallen heroes, J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson. I knew both these men and am proud to be able to call them friends. I came to know J.J. Chestnut through his warm smile and his kind words and upbeat personality. Every afternoon and then later in the evening, he would greet me at his guard post and he would say, ``Hello, Congressman Hastert,'' and I would say, ``Hello, Officer Chestnut,'' and for 4 years, we have developed a camaraderie, an understanding. I have a great deal of respect for him. When we brought guests into the Capitol, my son and others, I would always make sure that I introduced them to Officer Chestnut. Because I thought that was the best that we could show of people who are here, who care about and are not always in the limelight, that care about this place, that care about the substance and the pride that this Capitol can show and the parts that many, many people play in keeping it a place of respect and honor. He was a professional certainly in every sense of the word. As for John, our friendship grew over the many hours and particularly the late nights spent in the majority whip office. No matter the frantic pace or the pressure of the given moment, I always remember John as calm, yet focused, doing his job while we were counting votes or conducting whatever congressional business was going on at hand, and all the while John seemed to have a cheerful comment for the moment that would put folks at ease around him. I always remember coming through that door, up until Friday afternoon, maybe six or eight or 10 times a day because that is kind of the way that I wind my way back from the floor, down the staircase and in that side door, and every time I would open the door, John would be there, he would look, he would check, see who it was, a cheerful hello, but he was always vigilant, always there, something that I took for granted. It was also something that even when Officer Chestnut would come through there and the stature that he would have, you took it for granted. Those were people that were there, they were there to protect you, and sometimes in your mind, you never think about what could happen, or what might happen. As many of you already know, this tragedy hits particularly close to home. As the chief deputy whip, I work out of that whip's office as do a few of my staff. In fact, my staff and my wife were waiting for me to return from the floor that day. I can absolutely and positively say that were it not for the valor of Officer Chestnut and certainly Special Agent John Gibson, the lives of people who are very close to me would have been in jeopardy. This tragedy could have been much worse. It certainly comes as no surprise that when duty called, Officer Chestnut and John Gibson answered. Unfortunately, they and their families now must pay the ultimate price. They died so others could live. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Officer Chestnut's wife Wen and his children Joseph, Janece, Janet, Karen and William; and to John's wife Evelyn and their children Kristen, John and Daniel. As difficult as it is for the Chestnut and the Gibson families coping with this loss, I hope that they can take some comfort in knowing that their loved one's bravery protected thousands of others in the U.S. Capitol. I am not just talking about July 24 but each and every day that they put on the badge and went to work. Their actions are evidence that the system worked, even though a routine day turned terribly bad. For all Americans, we owe a debt of gratitude not only to officer J.J. Chestnut and Special Agent John Gibson and their families but to all those who proudly wear a uniform in order to defend democracy and fight for our freedom. We should honor them, we must remember them, and most of all we must thank them. They are heroes and they deserve our most appreciative respect. I have to say, I think about the things that we are able to do in this place from time to time. As an elected Member who serves in this people's House, we have some outstanding times, some times when the light shines, you can accomplish something, that short span of time, in 5 or 10 or whatever, however many years a person has as the right or the privilege of serving in this House. There are some short times that we can do some very great things. We live for those times. And then you think of the people who help make this place work. The time for Officer Chestnut and John Gibson came on July 24. Their short time to excel and do the bravest thing that they could for their country and the people who work here, for their families and for the ideal of democracy came in just a short period of time. When that challenge came, they excelled at that challenge. We could not ask them to do any more than they did. So, with all our heads held high and respect for those gentlemen, I thank them, I thank their families, and we can even be proud of this institution.

Mr. HASTERT

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

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery). (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, today is an important day for American families. Today we will take a step forward to strengthen the Nation's health care system. Today we will debate and vote upon the House Republican-sponsored Patient Protection Act. Our legislation is the only proposal on the table that truly protects patients and guarantees choices without the heavy hand of big government. Specifically, our bill guarantees patients have increased access to affordable health care they need when they need it most by holding insurance companies accountable. How? Our proposal guarantees the unprecedented expedited review process internally and externally. We want patients to receive the care they need first rather than be thrown into a long, drawn-out legal process controlled by lawyers after harm or death has occurred. Patients should be treated in hospital rooms, not courtrooms. Besides true accountability, our plan has another major advantage over other proposals in this Congress. The Patient Protection Act is the only bill which will help cover the 42 million uninsured working Americans. We create new initiatives to guarantee more access to affordable health care choices. Association Health Care Plans, HealthMarts, Community Health Organizations, and Expanded Medical Savings Account help employees and employers work together to provide the coverage that best meet their need. As a matter of fact, just this week at a news conference, the Senate minority leader Tom Daschle was asked, ``What does the Democrat plan do for the uninsured?'' His response, ``Not much.'' At least he was truthful. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle today are just as forthright and resist the temptation to distort the facts about what is in the House Republican plan. We truly believe that high quality health care depends upon the patient-doctor relationship. Personally, I believe that doctors owe their patients the benefit of their education, the benefit of their experience, and the benefit of their good judgment. Medical decisions should be decided by doctors, not by insurance company bureaucrats. We prevent health plans from gagging doctors for explaining the full range of treatment options available no matter what the cost, no matter if the other options are covered by the plan or not. We also ensure patients have ready access to emergency room care and prohibit their health plan from arbitrarily refusing to pay for it. We guarantee that women and children have direct access to their doctors without having first going to the insurance company gatekeeper. Our proposal will also empower patients and doctors through information. It creates new access to plan coverage information while also protecting individual patient records from abuse through new confidentiality requirements. Access to affordable health care is a fundamental patient protection. Without affordability, you cannot have accessibility, nor, for that matter, health care coverage at all. As you can see, we are protecting patients and guaranteeing choices, without the heavy hand of big government. Mr. Speaker, we must have a comprehensive approach to meeting America's health care needs. Our Patient Protection Act is the only proposal before Congress that increases accessibility, affordability and accountability in our health care system. I urge my colleagues to support this rule so we can deliver the health care reform that Americans need.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 509, I call up the bill (H.R. 4250) to provide new patient protections under group health plans, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just remind the gentlewoman from New Jersey that the people that we are bringing under the umbrella of new health care do not have health care today, part of the 40 million people who work for a living, who are out there that do not have health care. We are trying to expand and bring those people under the umbrella of health care. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, and certainly someone who has worked on this issue of bringing people under the umbrella of health care for a long time. (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health Care of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder). (Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), Speaker of the House.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.