Ray LaHood

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Let me just also indicate something else that I think is going on. There has been a campaign throughout the country on behalf of the Democrats to try and scare senior citizens into believing that Republicans want to throw senior citizens off of Medicare, that we want to eliminate Medicare, that we want to do something drastic to Medicare, when the truth of the matter is that three of the President's own Cabinet members have told us that if we do not do something to reform, to preserve, to protect the Medicare Program, it will be broke. Yet our friends on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that we can keep continuing doing what we have been doing, but the point is there are a number of people coming into the system, health care costs are going up, and we want to try and strengthen and preserve the program. We do not want to throw senior citizens off. We do not want to reduce the benefit. We want to preserve and protect the program.

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

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I think the cleverest part of the argument that is made over here about this statement is that we have had those reports in the past. So we have had them in the past, and we do not want to do anything with it. Some of us came here with the idea that when you get a report like that and that there are people in the country who have benefited from these programs, and nobody will deny that Medicare has been a good program, we feel a responsibility to try and reform the program to preserve it, to protect it for the senior citizens, not simply to say, as our friends on the other side of the aisle would say, oh, we have heard those reports before. Some of us feel a responsibility to do something about it when you get a report from three Cabinet members from the President's own Cabinet.

Mr. LaHOOD. That is what we call waste, fraud, and abuse. That is an area that anybody that has been involved with Medicare, any senior citizen will tell you, there are all kinds of problems that people face. Some of us feel a responsibility to reform this program, to weed out, to ferret out the waste, fraud, and abuse and save the taxpayers millions and billions of dollars because we want to preserve the program. In order to do that we have to make these kinds of reforms that we are talking about.

Mr. LaHOOD. Now, would anybody believe that Dr. Dave Weldon, the gentleman from Florida, now a Member of the 104th Congress, would want to throw any of his patients off of Medicare, would want them to be deprived of medical care? Of course they would not. And for someone like the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], now a Congressman, to be accused by people on the other side of the aisle of being hard-hearted or wanting to throw people off of Medicare is just simply nonsense. I just want the American people to know that the gentleman from Florida, Dr. Weldon, comes here as a practitioner of medicine for senior citizens. Who could care more about the seniors of our country than one who has practiced medicine for senior citizens? I think it is an important point.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, let me just cite a couple of examples. Whenever I have been in a room of senior citizens, I say, have any of you had a problem with billing or with some kind of complication with Medicare? Every hand in the room goes up. A woman from Tremont, IL, came up to me at the Tremont Turkey Festival. She gave me a check. She said: ``Congressman, I am 80 years old. Medicare has been a good program. I just received this check from Medicare for 2 cents. How much does it cost to process a check for 2 cents?'' A gentleman came to me at a meeting in Pekim, IL, at a town meeting that I had. He said: ``I had a procedure done, I am on Medicare, I had a procedure done. I got a bill from the anesthesiologist for $8,000. I took it back to him and I said: Could this be right? He said: `No, it should have been $800.' But Medicare paid $8,000.'' One other example: A gentleman came to my office in Jacksonville, IL. He received a bill from the hospital 40 days after he had been in there. The first item, intensive care, $36,000; he said: ``I was never in intensive care.'' Another item down below: Other services, $11,000. He says: ``I do not know what those were.'' Are there problems with the Medicare Program? Are there things that need to be fixed? Of course there are. Ask anybody who is receiving Medicare and they will tell you that. That is what we are trying to do, play the responsible role and fix a good program and reform it to save money for people who will want to use the program currently and in the future.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. I know, and I think your colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, deserves an awful lot of credit for bringing it back up again, not the idea now that we are trying to use this to leverage and try to scare senior citizens, when what we are really trying to do is protect them. Mr. Speaker, I want to make one comment about my own aunt. I have traveled all over central Illinois, whether it be in Jacksonville, Havana, Beardstown, Springfield, or my hometown of Peoria. My aunt is 90 years old. She was lived in senior housing for 25 years. She is blind. She has lived in that housing scared to death for many years of the kind of people that were there. I think because of the leadership of the gentleman from Massachusetts Peter Blute, the gentleman from New York, Rick Lazio, and Members on the other side to bring this bill forward and to get it passed, not only in this House but in Senate, it is a credit to our majority, along with the minority, who care deeply about senior citizens and improving their community, because these senior housing projects are their community within a community. I laud all of those for getting the bill forward and ask support. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in complete support of this important piece of legislation, not only for the country, but for my district as well. Next to balancing the Federal budget, public safety in our housing communities is something I hear about all the time. Everywhere I go, senior citizens tell me of the horror stories of having to live their lives terrified by crime in public housing facilities. Senior citizens are being held hostage, because crime is out of control. Our Nation's public housing facilities have become a breeding ground for criminals and criminal behavior. I am sometimes outraged at the stories told to me throughout my district. This must stop. Mr. Speaker, I also speak from personal experience. My 90-year-old aunt, Ann Tapscott, who happens to be blind, is a resident of the Sterling Towers Apartments in Peoria, Illinois. She has lived there for over 25 years. Not a day goes by in which she has not felt threatened by the drug activity at Sterling Towers. This type of activity is reprehensible,and we have an obligation to bring it to a halt. Fortunately, the bill we are considering today, H.R. 117, the Senior Citizens Housing Safety Act of 1995, would prohibit the placement of current or former drug and alcohol abusers in public housing that is specifically designated [section 202] for elderly, or elderly and disabled families. Mr. Speaker, I commend our colleague and friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute]. He has worked tirelessly, since 1992, on this issue. I wholeheartedly support the bill and urge its adoption by the House. Mr. Speaker, before closing, I would also like to thank my colleagues on the Banking Committee for their leadership in this issue. Senior citizens in central Illinois are truly grateful.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to refocus the attention on what we are here to debate today, and try to be intellectually honest with the American people about what we are talking about. We are talking about the fact that we want to make the existing housing that exists in this country safe for senior citizens, and we are doing it in a bipartisan way. I think it is a little unfortunate that those Members that want to accuse Republicans of doing things against senior citizens do not take the time to do that in another place and another time, perhaps on the debate on budget reconciliation, or as you did during the Medicare debate, but the debate here today and the discussion here today is on the efforts of your colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Peter Blute, who, when he was elected, came here and introduced this bill while you were in control, not when we were talking about tax cuts. I think the gentleman from Massachusetts deserves an awful lot of credit for having the foresight to bring this bill to the House when he was first elected.

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, America should get ready. The Democrats are coming, and the date is October 5. This is their blueprint for coming into more than 50 districts around the country, not to talk about how to save Medicare, but to criticize Republicans. We have a plan, Madam Speaker. We want to save, protect, and strengthen Medicare, but this is their blueprint. If America wants to know when they are going to be in your area, please call my office. It is October 5. They have no plan. All they want to do is come to these districts and scare Americans and scare senior citizens. If America wants to know the truth, if they want solutions, if they want to know how we are going to strengthen and protect and save Medicare for our seniors, they should call my office and we will be happy to give them the details. This is the blueprint. They are coming October 5, so get ready.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, in your subcommittee report under title V, page 124, there is report language about the future of some SBA offices around the country. The report recommends to the SBA, and I quote, ``not to close my district or branch offices at this time.'' Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if this pertains to the branch office in Springfield, IL, which is in my district and shared by the gentleman from southern Illinois.

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I am appreciative of your efforts to behalf of the small business men and women in central Illinois. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the Springfield office is the only SBA office in Illinois outside of the city of Chicago. While I support the SBA's efforts to restructure, that effort should not be at the expense of those in rural Illinois. In addition, Mr. Chairman, several States with offices had less lending activity than the Springfield office, but were kept open. In closing, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his assistance, and I look forward to working with him in the future on this issue.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. The gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. LaHOOD. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Georgia, and your contribution here in trying to enlighten those of us who need enlightening about that program and other programs that we will be considering as a part of the 1995 farm bill. Our time is limited here. Let me throw out one other issue and get a response. I think the thing that drives people, particularly those in agriculture in my district up the wall, if you will, or drives them a little crazy is this idea of overregulation, the idea that some agency of the Federal Government can come in and designate, for example, a part of their land as a wetland, or they can designate it as an area that cannot be used for growing crops. I have heard, like so many of the other people in this House, and Mr. Chambliss, I am sure that you hear the complaints about overregulation. We passed a good regulatory reform bill. We need to do more. We are going to be working on reform of EPA and OSHA and FDA and some other agencies that have frankly gone too far, and try and bring the pendulum back, bring back some common sense. In the Transportation Committee we passed a clean water bill which I think brings common sense back to this idea that the Government can come in and just dictate to local government or State government or to an individual farmer or rancher that they have to do certain things. I know that this whole definition of wetland has been a real problem in the area that I come from, and I would be curious to know if Mr. Jones from North Carolina or Mr. Chambliss from Georgia has encountered that from any of your constituents that you could cite for us as an example or two of some areas where we have just gone overboard in some of these things.

Mr. LaHOOD. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I want to give an opportunity for the gentleman from Georgia to talk about another program that we will be working on as a part of the 5-year farm bill authorization, and certainly was an issue that came up in the ag appropriation bill, maybe not highlighted as much as it has been in years past, but it is a program that I know is misunderstood by the American people, but it is a very important program that has to do with the peanut program, and I know that there are other areas that you are interested in. But I think it would be enlightening, if you will, for the American people to have some sense of some of the issues that revolve around that particular program and any other issue that you would like to enlighten us about. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].

Mr. LaHOOD. I thank the gentleman very much for his contributions. Two other gentlemen have joined us, one from North Carolina, Mr. Jones, and one from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, and both of you gentlemen were involved in the discussions as we were talking about the ag appropriations bill, and I know that you will be involved as we mark up the 1995 farm bill. Each of you comes to the House representing a different part of the country in a sense and also a different region of the country and certainly different interests as they relate to agriculture, and I think it would be interesting for you to sound off for a few minutes about the kind of interest that you have, one involving tobacco in North Carolina, one involving peanuts in Georgia, and two areas that I am sure are very misunderstood by the American people and by many people in this House, by the way, and I think it would be enlightening. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina for whatever comments he may have with respect to tobacco, to agriculture as it relates to your district or other matters related to this.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to the House this evening about a subject that does not seem at times to be the sexiest topic around here, although I think at times it does draw a great deal of emotion from many of the Members as was demonstrated when we began to and finished the debate on the ag appropriation bill. It is a subject that I know many Members are very interested in and that is the subject commonly referred to as agriculture. When I was running for election to this House, I told the people in my district that I wanted to serve on the Committee on Agriculture because of the importance of agriculture to my district, to the country, but because my district has had a very rich heritage of representation on the ag committee from former Congressman Paul Finley, who was the ranking member of the Ag Committee when he left the Congress in 1982; Congressman Ed Madigan, the late Ed Madigan, who was the ranking member and then went on to serve as the Secretary of Agriculture; and then my former boss and mentor, the former Republican leader, Bob Michel, who was on the ag appropriations subcommittee for 25 years. We have had a rich heritage in my district of representing agriculture, and that is something that I wanted to continue. And there are three goals that I want to lay out and say to the American people that we need to strive for as we mark up the ag bill: No. 1, farm programs should not be singled out for spending cuts. All Federal programs should be on the table. Agriculture is willing to take its fair share, and I know that. From talking to the farmers in my district, I know they are willing to take their fair share. They have taken their fair share over the last 10 years and when you look at the decreases in agriculture programs, while all other programs of Government have increased, agriculture has taken its fair share. No. 2, spending cuts should go to reduce the deficit, not to spend on other programs, as has been the case in the last 10 years. And finally, Congress must deliver on promises to roll back the tidal wave of burdensome regulation, provide consistency and predictability in our export markets and restore fairness and sanity to our Tax Code. I think if we could meet those three goals, we would be serving agriculture well and serving all Americans. I am joined this evening by three distinguished colleagues from the House of Representatives, and I would like to provide an opportunity for them to sound off for a minute or two about some important issues related to agriculture in their districts. I think what I would like to do is yield to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], who comes here from an agricultural district, and having been appointed by the Speaker of the House to chair a task force for those members who do not sit on the Ag Committee and are not intimately involved in the everyday workings, as some of us are, for whatever comments. I yield to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], and welcome his comments with respect to what he has been doing with his task force and other matters that he would like to address the House with.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.