Denny Hastert

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his hard work on this good piece of legislation. I also want to congratulate the other chairmen of the subcommittees that had jurisdiction. I want to extend my congratulations to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who just spoke a minute ago. He certainly has his views on this bill; but if it was not for his work and cooperation, we would not have the bill today, so I thank him for that. This has been a rough road to travel. Many of the competing interests have struggled mightily to be included in this legislation. As the gentleman from Wisconsin just got done laying out the litany of some of them, we find that most of those had come from the Senate. So we worked hard to make sure that we could provide a bill that was focused on the issues at hand, true issues of emergency, and that we would get back in return a bill that would be focused on the true issues of emergency. But it is not the time to fight for special interests. It is the time for Congress to promote the national interests. This bill serves, in my opinion, the national interests. It provides resources to our servicemen and women who work so hard to defend this country who we ask to go to the far points of this Earth to defend American interests. It provides necessary relief to our farmers who have been devastated by an ailing farm economy. These farmers put food on the tables of American people, and they deserve the support of the American people. It helps our neighbors to the south who were devastated by Hurricane Mitch and our citizens in the Midwest who were devastated by vicious tornados. Mr. Speaker, we are elected to Congress to represent our constituents, but we are also elected to serve the American people. This legislation fulfills our constitutional duties to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for the American people. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina very much for yielding me time. Ladies and gentlemen of Congress, I rise in support of this rule and the supplemental. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. Let me just say, I have heard some rhetoric since I have been here the last 10 or 15 minutes that there is not enough food aid or refugee assistance in here. There is $600 million in here, as requested by the President, for food and refugee assistance, $600 million. It is in the line. It is there. And to say it is not is just purely false. It is there. It was asked by the President. We put that money in. But this vote today is probably one of the most important votes we can take as Members of Congress. The issue is simple: Do you support our men and women in uniform as they defend America's interests and will you help us restore our Nation's defense so that our soldiers can do their jobs? Last week, the House spoke on the President's policies concerning the engagement in Kosovo; and. Clearly, the House had some misgivings about those policies. But today, let there be no mistake, the United States Congress stands with its soldiers, sailors, and airmen as they defend America. Since the conclusion of the Cold War, the Federal Government has steadily drawn down its defenses. In fact, this administration's budgets have severely reduced those budgets of our military over the last few years, and for good reason. The President did so under the assumption that the world was a safer place in the absence of a Soviet threat. But, with Saddam Hussein, the instability in North Korea and with the current situation in Kosovo, we have learned a valuable lesson: The world is not a safer place. And, in fact, the threats from terrorist nations have increased, and we must be prepared to defend America's interests. Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, the money we spend today will start the process of giving our soldiers and sailors and airmen the resources they need to do their jobs. It will make certain that they have the training they need to keep them safe. It will give them the livable housing and reasonable wages. It will give them spare parts they need to keep their planes in the air. And it will give them the munitions to allow them to carry out their missions. To my colleagues who disagree with the President's policy, let me say simply, you had your vote last week. To my colleagues who want to pick this supplemental apart, let me say that this, too, is important for our servicemen and servicewomen to not be subject to partisan politics. Now is the time to rise above the partisanship and vote for the good of the country as a whole. To my colleagues who feel we should offset this emergency spending, let me say that this bill represents our best efforts to deal with the national emergency. And to my colleagues who worry about the impact of this vote on the Social Security Trust Fund, let me say, we will replenish that money to the Social Security Trust Fund. We cannot replenish the lives of our soldiers that may be lost if we fail to provide adequate resources to them in this time of need. Let me state again: Every penny of Social Security receipts will be credited to the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, the American people expect the Congress to act responsibly when it comes to providing for our Nation's security. Let us not fail them. Vote for this rule, vote for this defense supplemental, and vote for our soldiers and sailors and airmen as they defend America.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday our Nation witnessed a senseless tragedy in Littleton, Colorado. Before I begin my 1 minute, I would like the House to take a moment of silence to remember the lives of those poor students who died at Columbine High School. Mr. Speaker, Americans across this Nation are trying to come to grips with the latest senseless tragedy that hit one of our schools. Why do some of our children feel the need to kill? How can they feel such hate? And why do they not have the moral framework that would stop this kind of tragedy? There are no easy answers to these questions, but some things I do know, that we must do our best to make our schools safe. We must provide our children with the moral framework from which they can distinguish between right and wrong. We must stop the culture of death that makes vicious killers out of too many of our children. Mr. Speaker, our children are our future. If we do not teach them the differences between right and wrong, our Nation's future is in peril. My deepest condolences go out to the community of Littleton, Colorado and especially to the parents of the students of Columbine High School. As a parent of two boys, I can only imagine the grief that you are feeling today as you try to make sense of yesterday's tragedy.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, racial prejudice, as the American novelist Pearl Buck once said, ``is a shadow over all of us and the shadow is darkest over those who feel it least and allow its evil effects to go on.'' Fortunately for the United States, this statement does not describe Rosa Parks. Her courageous, yet simple act, made clear that the evil of racial prejudice could not go on. In an era when words seemed to speak louder than deeds, her small act of defiance spoke volumes--and we are still hearing the reverberations today. Rosa Parks not only deserves, but has more than earned the Congressional Gold Medal. When I met her recently over tea, it was an amazing--and humbling--event to meet a living legend. Like American heroes before her, she has created a lasting legacy as truly the first lady of civil rights and the mother of the freedom movement. I am honored to have met her and honored to recommend that she receive the Congressional Gold Medal. I am proud that this Congress has taken the initiative to honor this American legend.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the constitutional amendment today. I commend my colleague from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his long-time effort. I think that as long as we have known each other he has been working on this issue, and he has exemplified the old phrase ``If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.'' But when we try and try again, it is for a noble effort. We must continue to try again to pass this constitutional amendment, as we must continue to try to provide tax relief for the American people. Make no mistake about it, working Americans are taxed too much. They are taxed at a higher rate than since the Second World War. They are taxed when they eat. They are taxed when they drink. They are taxed when they drive. They are taxed when they work. And they are taxed even when they die. If we go back a little over a decade ago, we celebrated the anniversary of the Constitution of this country. And right before that, I remember, as I was teaching history in a small high school in Illinois, we were studying the Revolution. This country fought a revolution over taxes. It was the vision of our forefathers that the people in this country should have economic liberty, they should have economic choice, not government choosing how to spend their money, but individuals choosing how to spend the money that they earn. Higher taxes mean bigger government. If we are going to restore balance to our society where individuals and local communities have more power, we need to make the Federal Government smaller and smarter. Support this constitutional amendment and go on record in support of tax relief for the American people.

Mr. HASTERT

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

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, certainly tonight is a grave time for this country. It is a time that any time our armed services, our young men and women, confront an enemy in service of this country is a time that we must focus on and we must pray for their strength and safety, and we are there. We can debate the reasons why we are there and we can talk about if it is good or it is not good. We can talk about the problems that we have seen in that area, namely Kosovo, but we are there. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my personal appreciation and strong support for our men and women. They are in the skies over Kosovo and Serbia as we speak. They are risking their lives for certainly the ideal of democracy and safety and decency, and our hearts and our prayers certainly go with them. We know how dangerous their mission is, and we strongly urge all Members to give their whole-hearted support to this resolution. I would like to commend those brave young men and women for their selfless sense of honor and duty to their country. Each is a modern hero, an example of why America is truly a great Nation, and we wish them godspeed in their mission and certainly a safe return. The hearts of all Americans, and prayers, are with them.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter for the Congressional Record. March 14, 1999. Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker Hastert: With praise and thanks to Almighty God we wish to congratulate you on your elevation to Speaker of the House of Representatives. As priests in the Diocese of Rockford and currently stationed at Holy Angels Catholic Parish in Aurora, Illinois, it is with great joy that one so close to us has been appointed to such a position of responsibility. We know you will fulfill your duties with dignity and grace. Mr. Philip Kaim is now studying for the priesthood for our diocese. He is particularly proud of your achievement. We are praying for him as we are sure you are, as well. With every good wish in the Lord Jesus we remain, Rev. Gerald Kobbeman. Rev. Daniel Deutsch. Rev. Brian Geary.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this rule. I would like to address the House for a few moments on the issue we are preparing to consider, the possible deployment of U.S. troops to Kosovo. The President has made it clear that he is committed to sending approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to Kosovo as part of a NATO force intended to keep the peace. I am convinced that the President firmly believes the presence of U.S. troops in Kosovo is essential to maintaining peace in this troubled area. Like every American, I hope the Serbs and the Kosovars are able to achieve a peaceful resolution to their dispute. We all pray for that outcome. Kosovo is a great human tragedy, fanned by injustice and unexplained hatred. As a Member of this great body and now as your Speaker, I have never wavered in my belief and trust in this institution. Some have argued that we should not have this debate today, that we should just leave it to the President. Some have even suggested that taking part and talking about this could damage the peace process. I disagree. No one should fear the free expression of ideas, the frank exchange of opinions in a representative democracy. Two weeks ago, the German Bundestag held an extensive debate and voted on whether or not Germany should deploy over 5,000 German troops in Kosovo. The British Parliament has also discussed the deployment of British troops in Kosovo. I do not believe that any harm has been done to the peace process by the workings of these two great democracies. In fact, one message which should come from this debate and those held in the parliaments of our allies is that a free people can disagree without violence and bloodshed. On this important subject, I have tried to be direct and honest. I have spoken with the President and with his Secretary of State. I told them that I believed it was my duty as Speaker to ensure that Members of the House of Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, have the opportunity to fairly and openly debate the important issue before troops are sent into a potentially dangerous situation. I believe Congress must have a meaningful role in this decision, no matter how difficult our choice nor how hard our task. I have been equally honest in telling the President that I personally have reservations regarding the wisdom of deploying the additional U.S. troops to the former Yugoslavia, but I have not made up my mind and I will listen intently and closely to this debate. I hope that each of you will do the same, because it is our heavy responsibility and high honor to represent the men and women who are being asked by the President to go into harm's way. Each of us must be prepared to answer to their families and loved ones. I am deeply convinced that we owe them today's debate, for under our Constitution we share this burden with our President. Our debate today will enable each of us to carry out our responsibilities in a fair and thoughtful way. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), at my request, has offered without prejudice this resolution stating the President's position, that troops be deployed. I urge the adoption of this open rule that allows every Member of this House to have a say and to amend this resolution. We have set in place a fair and open process. We are here to discuss sensitive issues of policy and not personality. And let me repeat, we are here today to discuss policy and not personality. I know it does not need to be said, but I urge all Members to treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves. We have a solemn duty to perform. And let us do it with the dignity that brings credit to this great House.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following statement about WTOP Radio to the Congressional Record: It is with great pleasure that I note that today is the 30th anniversary of WTOP Radio in Washington, D.C. This organization plays a vital part in our city by being a prime source of information on major news events. Over the past 30 years, WTOP has offered extensive, up-to-the-minute coverage of all the important happenings in the nation's capital and around the world. On this occasion of WTOP's 30th anniversary, it is with great honor that I wish the entire organization a hearty congratulations on its many accomplishments. From detailing the weather to helping our children know how to dress for school each morning to providing the latest sports scores, WTOP has provided comprehensive reporting. Through my personal experience of being interviewed by WTOP's congressional correspondent Dave McConnell, I know that WTOP--and Dave--always provide fair, balanced and accurate reporting. It's always been a pleasure to work with Dave and WTOP. To all the hard-working staffers of WTOP, I offer my sincere congratulations. I look forward to hearing news from you for the next 30 years!

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you, Mr. Leader, for your kind and thoughtful remarks. I am going to break tradition, and at this point I am going to ask you to hold the gavel so that I may go down to the floor. Customarily, a new Speaker gives his first remarks from the Speaker's chair. And while I have great respect for the traditions of this House and this institution, I am breaking tradition this once, because my legislative home is here on the floor with you, and so is my heart. To you, the Members of the 106th Congress, to my family and friends and constituents, I say, thank you. This is not a job that I sought, but one that I embrace with determination and enthusiasm. In the next few minutes, I will share with you how I plan to carry out the job that you have given me. But first, I think we need to take a moment, and I want to say goodbye to a Member of this House who made history. Newt, this institution has been forever transformed by your presence, and for years to come all Americans will benefit from the changes that you have championed: a balanced budget, welfare reform, tax relief, and in fact, this week, families all over America are beginning to calculate their taxes, and to help them, they will find a child tax credit made possible by the Congress that you led. Thank you, Newt. Good luck, and God bless you in your new endeavors. Those of you here in this House know me, but Hastert is not exactly a household name across America. So our fellow citizens deserve to know who I am and what I am going to do. What I am is a former high school teacher, a wrestling and football coach, a small businessman and a State legislator. And for the last 12 years, I have been a Member of this House. I am indebted to the people of the 14th Congressional District of Illinois who have continued to send me here to represent them. I believe in limited government, but when government does act, it must be for the good of the people. Serving in this body is a privilege, it is not a right, and each of us was sent here to conduct the people's business. I intend to get down to business. That means formulating, debating, and voting on legislation that addresses the problems that the American people want solved. In the turbulent days behind us, debate on merits often gave way to personal attacks. Some have felt slighted, insulted, or ignored. That is wrong. That will change. Solutions to problems cannot be found in a pool of bitterness. They can be found in an environment in which we trust one another's word; where we generate heat and passion, but where we recognize that each member is equally important to our overall mission of improving life for the American people. In short, I believe all of us, regardless of party, can respect one another, even as we fiercely disagree on particular issues. Speaking of people who find ways to work together across the political fence, let me bring an analogy to a personal level. Two good Illinois friends of mine, George Ryan, the Republican Governor-elect, and Richard Daley, the Democratic mayor of Chicago, are in the visitors' gallery side by side. I will ask them to stand to be recognized. Those who know me well will tell you that I am true to my word. To me, a commitment is a commitment. What you see and hear today is what you will see and hear tomorrow. No one knows me better than my family. My wife, Jean, and our sons, Josh and Ethan, are here today. They are my reason for being, and Jean, she helps me keep my feet on the ground. She and the boys are my daily reminder that home is on the Fox River, and not the Potomac River. To Jean, Josh, and Ethan, thank you for everything, and I love you. As a teacher, I explained the story of America year after year. I soon came to realize that it was a story, but a story that keeps changing, for we Americans are restless people, and we like to tackle and solve problems. We are constantly renewing our Nation, experimenting and creating new ways of doing things. I like to work against the backdrop of American basics: freedom, liberty, responsibility, and opportunity. You can count on me to be a workhorse. My experience as a football and wrestling coach taught me some other lessons that apply here. A good coach knows when to step back and let others shine in the spotlight. President Reagan for years had a plaque in his office that said it all: ``There is no limit to what can be accomplished if you don't mind who gets the credit.'' A good coach does not rely on only a few star players, and everyone in the squad has something to offer. You never get to the finals without a well-rounded team. Above all, a coach worth his salt will instill in his team a sense of fair play, camaraderie, respect for the game, and for the opposition. Without those, victory is hollow and defeat represents opportunities lost. I have found that to be true around here, too. So where do we go from here? Some media pundits say that we will have 2 years of stalemate because the Republican majority is too small. Some say that a White House bent on revenge will not give us a moment's peace. Some say the minority in this House will prevent passage of serious legislation so that they can later claim this was a ``do- nothing'' Congress. Washington is a town of rumors and guesses and speculation, so none of this comes as a surprise, but none of it needs to come true; that is, if we really respect the voters that sent us here. To my Republican colleagues, I say, it is time to put forward the major elements of our legislative program. We will succeed or fail depending upon how sensible a program we offer. To my Democratic colleagues, I will say, I will meet you halfway; maybe more so, on occasion. But cooperation is a two-way street. I expect you to meet me halfway, too. The President and a number of Democrats here in the House have been saying it is time to address several issues head-on. I will buy that, but I think we should agree that stalemate is not an option; solutions are. To all my colleagues, I say: We must get our job done and done now. We have an obligation to pass all the appropriation bills by this summer. We will not leave this Chamber until we do. I intend to be a good listener, but I want to hear ideas and the debate that flows from them. I will have a low tolerance for campaign speeches masquerading as debate, whatever the source. Our country faces four big challenges which we must address, and not next month or next year or the year after that, but now. Each challenge involves an element of our security. First is retirement and health security. Both our social security and Medicare programs will run into brick walls in a few years if we do not do something about them now. We must make sure that social security is there for those who depend on it and those who expect to. We also must consider options for younger workers, so they can look forward to an even brighter retirement. Nearly a year ago President Clinton came here to give his State of the Union Address. He called for reform of social security. This year I invite him to return to give us his reform plan, and he has my assurance that it will be taken seriously. Second, we must ensure a secure future for America's children by insisting that every child has a good school and a safe, drug-free environment. In my 16 years as a teacher, I learned that most of the decisions having to do with education are best left to the people closest to the situation: parents, teachers, school board members. What should the Federal government's role be? It should be to see that as many education dollars as possible go directly to the classrooms, where they will do the most good. Next is economic security. In the early eighties we adopted policies that laid the foundation for long-term growth. Except for one brief period, that growth has continued ever since. We want our economy to keep on growing. Toward that end, it is time for us in Congress to put a microscope to the ways that government takes money from our fellow citizens and how it spends it. There is a culture here in Washington that has grown unchallenged for too long. It combines three notions. One is that government has a prior claim to the earnings of all Americans, as if they worked for the government and not the other way around. Another notion is that a government program, once it is begun, will never end. A third notion is that every program must grow each passing year. To borrow a musical line, it just ain't necessarily so; at least, it will not be as long as I am around here to have something to say about it. We must measure every dollar we spend by this criterion: Is it really necessary? This is important. For most Americans, money does not come easy. When I was a kid, to make ends meet my dad had a feed business and he worked nights in a restaurant. My mom raised chickens and sold the eggs. I still remember, when tax time came around, our family really felt it. What we need is a leaner, more efficient government, along with tax policies that spur and sustain growth by giving tax relief to all working Americans. Finally, there is the challenge of America's security in a world of danger and uncertainty. Without it, other elements of our security will not be possible. We no longer worry about Soviet nuclear bombs raining down on us. Today there are different worries: the sudden violence of a terrorist bomb, the silent threat of biological weapons, or the rogue state that aims a deadly missile at one of our cities. We need a defense capability that matches these turn-of-the-century threats. We have asked the men and women of our Armed Forces to take on assignments in many corners of the Earth. Yet, we have not given them the best equipment or preparation that they need to match those assignments. That must be corrected. These are not Democratic or Republican issues, they are American issues. We should be able to reach agreement quickly on the goals. And yes, we are going to argue about the means, but if we are in earnest about our responsibilities, we will find common ground to get the job done. In the process, we will build the people's faith in this great United States Congress. As a classroom teacher and coach, I learned the value of brevity. I learned that it is work, not talk, that wins championships. In closing, I want you to know just how proud I am to be chosen to be your Speaker. There is a big job ahead for all of us, so I ask that God bless this House as we move forward together. I thank the Members very much. Now, let us bring an end to talk and let us get to work. I recognize my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), Dean of the House, my colleague from the Committee on Commerce, whose common sense and fairness I admire. He will administer the oath of office. Mr. DINGELL then administered the oath of office to Mr. Hastert, as follows: Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter. So help you God. (Applause, the Members rising.)

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that there is clear and convincing evidence that the President lied under oath, obstructed justice and abused the powers of his office in an attempt to cover up his wrongdoing. I regret that the President's behavior puts me in the position of having to vote in favor of articles of impeachment and pass this matter on to the U.S. Senate for final judgment. In facing this solemn duty, I look to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65, impeachment concerns ``offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse of violation of some public trust.'' The evidence in President Clinton's case is overwhelming, that he has abused and violated the public trust. In this Nation, all men are created equal. Simply put, the President in our representative democracy is not a sovereign who is above the law. Tomorrow I shall cast a difficult vote. The President's inability to abide by the law, the Constitution and my conscience have all led me to the solemn conclusion that impeachment articles must be passed.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to weigh in with the previous speaker. I did also teach for 16 years in Illinois, and I see the rhetoric and have heard the rhetoric that has been flying across the room these last couple of days, and it amazes me too a great deal. When I think about education, I think about putting good teachers in the classrooms. All the other folderol and bells and whistles, sometimes it helps but it does not make the difference whether kids are learning or not. I think the effort that we have put into this bill, that we anticipate to have moving forward, to put the responsibility back home with local school boards and with moms and dads and teachers and school board members so that they can do the best job and decide who the teachers are that should be in their classroom, instead of having somebody in Washington, D.C., in the Department of Education, deciding which school district should do which and how many people they should have in every classroom, let us keep that decision back home. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss another issue, and I think it is an issue of great importance to the people of this country, and that is HMO reform, or managed care reform. Over the last days also I have heard great partisan rhetoric on this floor about this issue, and I rise today, Mr. Speaker, with some of my colleagues who are also concerned about the truth, to set the record straight. Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is a political time of year. People are running for election. They are looking for political issues, and I know that we will listen to all kinds of exaggerations and partisan debate on this floor but there is no excuse, Mr. Speaker, for the kind of nasty and misleading information I have heard over the last few days. The truth needs to be told. For six months, 15 of my colleagues and I sat down around a table and considered the problem of HMO reform. Let me say at the outset, it is a very real problem. We know that from time to time, in a very deliberate situation, that people do not always get the care that they think they should need and their doctors tell them that they should have. So it is a very real problem. People believe that HMO bureaucrats have too much control over their health care, and people are afraid that their health care will not be there for them when they need it. My colleagues and I sat down and listened and learned about the problems in the health care industry. We listened to the people who were the advocates of the consumers. We listened to doctors. We listened to the health care practitioners. We listened to the people who bought health care for people who worked for them. We listened to the people who owned and worked through the companies that insure workers and people who buy insurance. Through this whole thing, we tried to listen and understand what the abnormalities of the market were. Why were people not getting the health care that they needed? We did not attempt to use tragedy for political gain, as I have heard some folks shamefully try to do on this floor. We listened, and after 6 months of listening to scholars and patient advocates and providers, we sat down to begin to solve the problems. We came up with a proposal to give people assurances that their health care would be there when they need it and we did it without the heavy hand of government. The last thing that most people want is some bureaucrat in Washington, or some bureaucracy in Kansas City or wherever it might be, saying that we have to go to this doctor, we have to have this kind of treatment, we have to have HCFA, which is the health finance organization of the Federal Government, prescribing what kind of health care individuals get. There are some in this Congress that would like health care to be prescribed by the Federal Government, to control our health care, our family's health care, what our children's health care is going to be in the future. There are many of us who do not think that the Federal Government should be able to do that and to micromanage what kind of health care we should get. We think that people ought to make choices, that doctors ought to make decisions and that health care ought to flow between that relationship between a doctor and a patient. There are two ways to address the HMO problem. We can throw the problem to the courts to decide or we can establish a common sense process that gets people the care they need up front. We really want, Mr. Speaker, people to get their health care in doctor's offices and hospital rooms. We do not want them to get their health care by suing and ending up having to go to a lawyer's office or a courtroom to get their health care, and that is what the other group of people out there believe; that people ought to be able to go to the courts and if they are sick and cannot get the health care they need they ought to sue. If they end up suing people, the only folks that probably will get benefits from that are the heirs because by the time the lawyers and the courts get done making the decision on health care, which needs to be done in a timely basis, they are probably, in many, many cases, not going to be there to enjoy that health care treatment. The care needed should be between the patient and the doctor. I guess that is one of the predicates that we set down in trying to develop a health care program off of, that the relationship between a doctor and a patient is pretty special. That relationship between a doctor and a patient also should be sacrosanct. In the health care situation, especially with HMOs or managed care, doctors are contractees or, in a sense, some type of an employee of the HMO. When they tell us that we should have this type of treatment or they give us this prognosis, and this type of care should be taken care of in health care, then that is the care that we should get. We should not really have a green-eyed guy or somebody who is the clerk of the office answer the phone and say, oh, by the way, Doc, we are not going to give that care. That should not happen. Does it happen? Yes, unfortunately it does from time to time. It is happening less and less, but as cost crunches go on, we will see that some insurance companies, some insurance companies are bad actors, and they are controlling the amount of health care that their customers or the patient can get. We think that is wrong. We do not think that insurance companies should limit doctors in being able to tell the patients what they think is, first of all, wrong with them and, secondly, what they think the prognosis or the care should be. That contract between the doctor and the patient is sacred. When a doctor tells the patient what his illness is and what he thinks the care should be, that ought to be carried through. We should not have a green-eyed person or a clerk telling us to do this a different way. It also sets us up in another situation. We need to be able to not allow insurance companies, then, to gag, what the word is, gag doctors from being able to limit what doctors could tell their patients. In our health care bill, one of the things we did was to put a stop to it, that insurance companies could not gag the doctors. We also said that, if we needed expedited health care and a specialist, we should be able to get in to see that specialist within 72 hours, and that we should not be denied, if a doctor says that we need to see the heart surgeon or the cancer specialist or the lung specialist, we should be able to get in to see that doctor within a very short frame of time so that we can get the kind of care we need. It really does not make any sense to expand a failed system that does not work in a vain attempt to solve a real problem. The solutions we came up with are certainly timely. We give people a timely access to review. Otherwise, if our doctor says that I think you should have this treatment, and the HMO says well, the doctor thinks that, but we are not going to pay for it, we can immediately go to a doctor for an appeal, an independent third doctor for an appeal and have that second doctor say I confirm or I disagree. Then if that second doctor disagrees, then we have the ability to go to a panel of experts and have them get us in in an urgent care situation into a hospital room or into the doctor's office or into the operating room within 72 hours in an urgent type of situation. We also believe that, if we wake up in the morning or in the middle of the night, heaven forbid, and we have chest pains and we really think that we are having a heart attack, we need to get to the hospital right away. We should not have to call an insurance company or the ``company doctor'' before we can get in to the emergency room. This bill says we have an expedited procedure that we can get us into an emergency room immediately, the emergency room that is closest to us and most convenient to us, that we can get there, and we cannot have us 3 days later saying, well, I thought I had a heart attack, but the company doctors said and insurance company said, well, you really only had heartburn and we are not going to pay the bill. We are not going to let that happen. There is a piece of legislation where we expedited people in health care, we got them in the emergency room, and they got the urgent care that they needed. We also thought that the common sense approach here is most women who have to get health care go to the OB/GYN, and they go on a yearly basis, so why should they have to go to an HMO, in to an independent care giver or a gatekeeper or the doctor that is the general practitioner, just to go to the OB/GYN to get their health care? The OB/GYN ought to be the doctor of first reference, because that is where most people go. We should not have to go to a third party to make that happen. So we make that ability to go directly to the OB/GYN an important piece of this legislation. The same way with families with children. If we have three kids, the chances are the doctor that we take those kids to is the pediatrician. We should not have to go to a general practitioner before we take our kids to the pediatrician to get service. That is common sense. We make that happen in this bill that the people have that immediate access. We also go ahead, and we try to do a few other things and try to make sure that the people are aware of what their insurance policy covers and that they have an appeal process. If they think they should have some type of treatment, and they are not getting it, they can have an expert tell them what they are entitled to and what they are not entitled to. We think that is important. They ought to know that up front. They also need to have their health records kept in confidence, that that information that their doctor accumulates or their pharmacy accumulates should not be handed off to another company so that they can be solicited for some type of medicine, that people's health care and their records of health care are sacrosanct, and that confidentiality ought to be in place. No amount of money is sufficient. If we do not get the health care we need, if we do not get the type of service that we need, if we do not get the ability of continuing the access to health care that is there, those, I think, are the very, very important things. I had about 15 folks who worked with us on a very, very diligent basis and tried to put together a piece of legislation that worked. At this time I would like to recognize my good friend from St. Louis, MO (Mr. Talent), to whom I will yield the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the management and workforce of a firm in my District which is celebrating its one hundredth year of operation. On October 18, 1899, the Aurora Metal Company was formed to reclaim metallic lead for the manufacture of hardware and decorative items. In the ensuing years, the company grew and prospered, pioneering the new technology of vacuum casting. In World War II, the Aurora Metal Company, along with industries across this nation, put its skill and determination to helping our Nation win the war, and received the prestigious Army-Navy E Award for outstanding production of war materials. In fact, the Aurora Metal Company was the smallest firm west of the Alleghenies to receive the honor. Today the company, now known as Aurora Metals Division LLC, located in Montgomery, IL, employs 160 people and maintains a state-of-the-art foundry, machine shop and tool and die manufacturing facility. And the talent, hard work and diversity of its workforce has contributed greatly to its success. The firm's dedication and commitment to providing high quality products at a fair price represent the ideals that have made our nation great, and are, in no small part, what have enabled Aurora Metals to grow and prosper. Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues to join me in honoring the workers and management of Aurora Metals on reaching this centennial milestone and wish them continued success for the future.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, We stand at a solemn moment in our nation's history. Today, the House votes on a recommendation from the Judiciary Committee to proceed with a fair and judicious inquiry into the charges contained in the report from the Independent Counsel. Like most of the people on Illinois' 14th Congressional District, I am very sad about this whole situation, and I am concerned that the President's actions have harmed not only his own reputation, but the trust and confidence that people have in the Presidency. We live in a dangerous world. And our economy, while good, is threatened by problems from abroad. In these times, we need leadership that people can trust if our democracy is to work. Confidence in government is built upon trust. Despite all the media hype and sensationalism, I believe the Judiciary Committee must calmly and professionally do its work and uncover the truth, because that is the only way we can put this matter behind us. Sweeping the matter under the rug just won't work but that would be a disservice to the American people. We must stand up for the Constitution and the laws of our land. Today, I will vote to allow the inquiry to begin so we can move quickly to uncover the truth. Every member of the Judiciary Committee, Republican and Democrat, voted for an investigation; they only disagreed on whether it should be artificially limited. The Committee must be free to follow all of the facts until they find the truth. I prefer not to set an arbitrary deadline because it will encourage those who do not want to get to the truth to run out the clock. Watergate Chairman Peter Rodino understood that, and that's why he rejected a time limit when Republicans sought one during the Watergate Hearings. I am satisfied with Chairman Hyde's commitment to try and get this matter resolved by the end of the year. Much as we wish we could just jump to an end result, the Founding Fathers were wise in establishing a balanced and deliberative process. It is the only path to the truth--the lifeblood of our justice system and of our democracy. Today, we begin a process to uphold the rule of law and help the nation heal.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Well, as the gentleman knows, we passed the rule on that bill today and it would be the intention of the House, after passing the rule, to act on that legislation. Hopefully, as that bill would come back, we could act on that as early as Tuesday.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and we, too, want to extend our best, Mr. Fazio, for your future. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that we have concluded legislative business for the week. The House will next meet on Monday, October 5, at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We do not expect any recorded votes before 5 p.m. on Monday. On Monday, October 5, we will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a list of which will be distributed to Members' offices this afternoon. On Tuesday, October 6, and through the balance of the week, the House will consider the following legislation: H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act, which is a conference report; H.R. 4274, the Labor-HHS Appropriations Act; H.R. 4570, the Omnibus National Parks Act; H.R. 3789, the Class Action Jurisdiction Act; and H.R. 4259, the Haskell Indian Nations University Act of 1998. Mr. Speaker, we also expect a number of appropriation and authorization conference reports to be ready next week. As we head into the final days of this session, Members should be ready to work late throughout next week in order to finish work on important conference reports. Mr. Speaker, the target adjournment is still October 9th, but of course Members should be prepared to stay through the weekend, if necessary. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, obviously, our goal is October 9. The date on the CR that we have under action right now is October 9, and we will have to take that into assessment next week as bills move along, and especially the conference reports. We would be ready to move such a bill, if necessary.

Mr. HASTERT. As I repeat it, it is our hope we will be able to adjourn by October 9. If there are signals that that will not be able to happen, we will take that under consideration later next week in a timely manner.

Mr. HASTERT. As the gentleman knows, the Committee on the Judiciary would either act on Monday or Tuesday and, depending on what the parameters of the rules are for that particular measure, we would take that bill up probably later in the week, possibly Thursday or Friday.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Madam Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 3284, the Dollars to the Classroom Act, a bill which I am proud to co- sponsor. I would like to congratulate my colleague Congressman Joe Pitts for his work in bringing this important legislation forward. As a former high school teacher, I am concerned about he current state of our Nation's schools, Clearly the lack of progress in educational reform at the K-12 level is a serious threat to the health of the economy and to the future prosperity of American children. However, in order to place the discussion about what to do about our failing educational system in context, a brief review of the history of the economics of federal involvement in education is in order. Thus far, school reforms have focused only on increasing funding to public schools. Since 1983, government funding to public K-12 schools has increased by 44 percent and average per-student spending has increased by 32 percent. Total spending for public K-12 education now totals nearly $300 billion per year. One of the central problems with education funding today is where this funding goes. For example, the federal government spends approximately $100 billion a year on more than 760 federal education programs. However, more than a third of the $15.4 billion spent by the Department of Education on elementary and secondary education programs never reaches the all important classroom; instead it is lost in a sea of bureaucracy. Madam Chairman, last year, the House took a first step toward assuring that taxpayer education dollars get where they are supposed to be going. The House passed, and I supported, the Dollars to Classrooms Resolution which expressed the sense of the House that the Department of Education, state education departments, and local education agencies work together to ensure that not less than 90 percent of all education funds are spent on children in their classrooms. In other words: let's get the money to the place it will do some good--the classroom. House Republicans have had some important successes over the past few years: we've balanced the federal budget for the first time in a generation, produced the first tax cut in 16 years, and moved millions of Americans from welfare to work. Today we are building on these successes by taking an important step toward bringing the best education possible within reach of every child in this country. The Dollars to the Classroom Act represents a major change in the federal government's approach to education funding. Instead of pouring money into the Department of Education and hoping some of its trickles down to our children's classrooms, this legislation will assure that 95 cents out of every federal education dollar goes directly to our kids' classrooms. What does this legislation mean for America's families and children? It means that every classroom in America will receive, on average, an extra $425 because this Act consolidates many grant programs that never reach the classroom and lifts restrictions that keep many schools from even applying for these grants. It means that $800 million additional education dollars will go to our public schools. It means that my home state of Illinois will receive $44 million more education dollars--an increase of more than 40%. In short, Mr. Speaker, the passage of the Dollars to the Classroom Act means that more education dollars will reach more kids. I cannot believe that anyone can oppose this. Madam Chairman, we have to ask ourselves where the solution to the problems with our education system lie. Some of my colleagues are convinced that if we could only send more money to the Department of Education they will be able to fix our schools. As a teacher, I must disagree. I know that innovation in education-- something we desperately need--will not come from Washington bureaucrats. In fact, they are at the root of the problem. Innovative solutions will only come from families, teachers, and local communities who actually do the job of teaching our kids. Madam Chairman, I am happy to co-sponsor the Dollars to the Classroom Act because it will free the hands of local schools to fix the problems without education system and it provides them the funds they need, no strings attached, to carry out these reforms. I urge all my colleagues to stand for our kids and support this important legislation.